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 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)

I've got you one degree, via 5. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If you count seeing someone nearby, then I'm three links away from Hitler. 92.29.91.83 (talk) 20:41, 28 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 [1] and various other google news links at [2]. 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". It was put on by the Katinas. 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)

"The deontological ethicist might say 'It's my duty to vote against this proposition, as it's unjust, even though it has popular support.'" If by unjust you mean that it violates natural rights, certainly the violation is a consequence of the proposition. If not, there was no mention of rights. Granted, classical consequentialists would argue that it isn't your duty to vote, and you should only do it if it's sufficiently likely to change the ballot, but there are some who won't (act consequentialists and similar) and they're still considered consequentialist. I just read that natural rights page and found this: "It is also difficult to reconcile the concept that one has a natural right to something if it does not create a corresponding, enforceable duty upon the state or a society." Perhaps a "natural right" is really just shorthand for saying that someone else has a duty to provide me with something. If this is true, it would mean that if my right was fulfilled because of someone without that duty, they did not fulfill their duty, and my right was essentially still violated. Is this correct? — DanielLC 04:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a good definition of a _legal_ right. A _natural_ right is (theoretically) one that can be deduced from abstract principles. If natural rights exist, then an ideal (or even merely adequate) society should reflect them in its laws. However, unless the right _is_ codified legally, it has no practical consequences. The phrase "Nonsense on stilts" hasn't been used yet in this discussion, so I'll take the opportunity to do so. :) Tevildo (talk) 18:45, 26 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)

Answer. --Sean 13:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sean Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 18:24, 28 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 his signature reproduced on the 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, missing words finally added 23:48 UTC, October 27, 2009.

And thanks to this, I've got that biography out of the library. Looks interesting: thanks desk! 86.144.144.110 (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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 [3]. 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)

Didn't the story used to go that the humans killed all, or almost all, of the giants and replaced them, rather than being their descendants? 148.197.114.207 (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies - all most useful - that sounds more likely, 148.197.114.207; what else do you know about it? Adambrowne666 (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The book you need is The First Fossil Hunters, where author Adrienne Mayor goes into minute detail regarding Greco-Roman attitudes towards fossilized mammal remains and the parts they played in various myths and legends. The idea that "there were giants in those days" is one that has existed for a very long time. And, as Ms. Mayor points out in Fossil Legends of the First Americans, it's one that is extremely widespread - Amerindians came to much the same conclusion about those bones as the ancient Greeks did: only heroes could possibly be of such stature. Both books are very well referenced and exceedingly detailed; I highly recommend them if you'd care to learn more about the topic, but will issue the caveat they they (particularly the first) are somewhat dry and scholarly. I assume you've also seen what our article has to say about the idea? Matt Deres (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Matt; I'll look it up. Adambrowne666 (talk) 13:15, 27 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)

Please note that the OP includes this phrase in his second paragraph:

... would a law not specifically banning the teaching of evolution, but rather banning teaching anything about the origin of life ...

As with a large proportion of folk who complain about evolution, he appears not to know what evolution actually is about in the first place. Evolution is not concerned with the origins of life, but in the changes that occur within lineages after life began. You will note that Darwin's book is the Origin of Species, not Life, and that he habitually called the subject "descent with modification." The OP seems to be worked up about nothing, not knowing what he's talking about. B00P (talk) 05:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Your last sentence is a good description for most of the opponents of teaching evolutionary theory. But it's not just evolution that's at issue, it's the age of the earth. The evolutionary process cannot possibly have happened in only 6,000 years, hence "it can't be true". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The contemporary debate over teaching creationism fails on one very specific count: it defines which creation story is the “accepted” one. Until and unless all creation stories – or a fair representation – are taught in balance, there is no safe way to teach just one. Better to stick to evolution, and leave religion to the Literature Department. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:38, 27 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)

Disappearance of industries took care of the worst pollutants; for historic background see: Kimstach, V. A; Meybeck, Michel; Baroudy, Elissar (1998). A water quality assessment of the former Soviet Union. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 0419239200, ISBN 9780419239208. NVO (talk) 07:45, 26 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 [4] 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, [5] 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)

New York City falls under Kpalion's first criterion (depending on how you define place). The Archdiocese of New York's has St. Patrick's Cathedral, and the Diocese of Brooklyn has the Cathedral Basilica of St. James. --Nricardo (talk) 23:41, 27 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)

I honestly have no clue what the above little column on kosher law has to do with the general question (he's not saying that veal is uncruel, anyway—he's saying it's kosher, which is not the same thing... methinks you need to actually read what you decide should be evidence for your case rather than just posting whatever comes up on Google first). Unless you are referring me to the reader comments? Sorry—if you fund cruelty, you are participating in it. Whether you want to draw the line at food because it is convenient, doesn't change that basic, obvious fact. We are responsible (ethically) for our economic actions, just as we are our political actions, even if our one purchase, or one vote, does not decide the entire outcome. If you purchase tortured animal, you are participating in a market for tortured animals. How you deal with that fact is up to you. But that doesn't change the fact of it. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't understand, all you had to do was ask. My point was that your POV assertions made above (If your money is used to support murder and kidnapping and sex slavery, and you know this, then you are morally and ethically culpable,) are just that -- your POV. Judaism, which would forbids torture to animals, would not forbid Jews from benefiting from torture from animals. Whether or not veal is torture -- I am not making that assertion. But according to most (and it seems you are included in this 'most'), it is -- I've never evaluated it personally, though. Anyway, the Talmud has specific regulations about aiding and abetting those who perform crimes, whether ritual or otherwise, and you should realize that your POV is essentially non-universal -- the veal was just an example for you, because I figured the average person could understand such a scenario. If you're interested in particular examples brought in the Talmud, I could elaborate in a more personal, user-talk fashion. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Or, hey, you could boycott a product and lobby your government until the laws and practices are changed such that eating veal produced in your country is less cruel than consuming dairy products and not eating veal. Like in the UK. 86.144.144.110 (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The nice thing about ethics is that for most things, it is not a POV question—it is a question of just calculating out the effects. (Morals are different—morals are about what you value, which are entirely subjective.) There is no convincing way I have seen to argue that funding something unpleasant does not hold you culpable to some degree in the unpleasantness. Now the some degree is up for debate, and whether you consider the activity unpleasant is up for debate, but if you buy products that fund torture, then you are funding torture to some degree. Now whether you decide this doesn't cross your line of whether something is prohibited or not, that's a different question. Whether we decide that responsibility is strong enough to get us to do something, that's a different question. But the connection? Come on. It is basic ethics, basic economics, and basic logic. There is no rigorous way to squirm out of that. All you can say, in the end, is "I don't care enough to modify my actions," "I don't consider that a bad thing," or "I don't have a choice." --Mr.98 (talk) 14:05, 27 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)

Our article on the subject suggests otherwise. Rockpocket 07:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 11:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"However, neither concept [in English contemporary law] lines up perfectly with the American conception of due process, which... contains many implied rights not found in the ancient or modern concepts of due process in England." Rockpocket 16:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I said "pretty similar" not "identical". Sure, the process is a little different, but the general idea is the same. --Tango (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I meant he appears to be invoking a constitutional right to procedural due process, which is not mandated in a British constitution (which we have already established is not a really a Constitution (with a capital C) because it is uncodified) but is in the US Constitution. In that sense, he appears to be using the American meaning of due process (the Constitutional codified right) to a British legal body, which does not respect such a right. Thats all. Rockpocket 23:50, 26 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)

I believe the prohibition in the Magna Carta is only against executive action which is not supported by legislation or timely judicial action. If the UK parliament made a law to arrest Joe Bloggs of 9 Cherry-Tree lane that would not be contrary to the Magna Carta. See also the previous comment about parliamentary soverignty. The UK has a constitution but a UK act of parliament cannot be declared unconstitutional by a court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.138.15 (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"If the UK parliament made a law to arrest Joe Bloggs of 9 Cherry-Tree lane that would not be contrary to the Magna Carta." Indeed. See Jonathan Wild and Brian Haw. Tevildo (talk) 17:53, 26 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

The "central dogma" of Christianity is that Jesus was the Messiah. That's where Christianity parts ways with both Judaism and Islam. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

The Catholic church shaped the idea of trinity, meaning that there are three entities and each is presumably deity. There is no trinity in Islam. One of the main principles of Judaism is that God have no shape or form of body and that we can't know anything about it aside for its commands manifestations and the Rambam also wrote that we can only inferwhat God isn't (to a very limit extent). So, it's very different from both Islam and Christianity --Gilisa (talk) 19:30, 27 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 [6]. 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)

Heaven worship predates Christianity by several millenia. Even if the expression was adopted from foreign influence, it probably isn't English - early missionaries were more likely to be Italian or French. The earliest form of Christianity to have flourished in China was Nestorianism. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:43, 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)

Saying that the USSR was "an officially atheist nation" is a misconception, one that I ran into before. Actually, the only officially atheist nation ever was communist Albania, which declared itself to be atheist in its constitution and banned religion outright. The USSR discouraged religion strongly, yes, but it wasn't officialy atheist. </OT> TomorrowTime (talk) 07:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Stalin article states that he himself was atheist. Is that a certainty, or is that original synthesis, based on the assumption that "all commies are atheists"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You'd never know. The old man wouldn't give a slightest clue and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that his personal tastes differed from his public policies. Incidentally, a search of his published papers and speeches yields no trace of any personal statements on religion or atheism. The topic "Was S. an atheist" has been debated in and out, and the answer is: we know what he did but we don't know what he was. NVO (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Stalin article indicates his true beliefs were kind of a mystery, so calling him an "atheist" in the fact box seems kind of questionable. It also mentions how he encourage the churches during WWII, for mercenary reasons, i.e. they served a means to an end. He was hardly the first to do that kind of thing, for sure. For example, the Pope sitting there saying nothing while the Jews were being rounded up. A man may compromise himself a great deal to keep his job. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh for... Yes, like the Queen sitting there, or like you sat in your chair surfing the internet while people are still in Guantanamo Bay. What should the Pope have done rather than sitting there: marched out with a bandolier of grenades? If you're interested in some actual historical fact, why not try reading the (badly titled) Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, which would lead you to Mit brennender Sorge, an extremely important encyclical written (unusually, and to ensure wide exposure) in German and widely distributed in Germany in 1937, before Kristalnacht, before Poland, before the ghetto and the death camps. Or perhaps you meant only Pious XII? In which case, Summi Pontificatus and Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust would probably be interesting reading. The truth is more complicated than the soundbite of "evil Catholic Church".86.144.144.110 (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic Church has only recently achieved some moral high ground. More recently than World War II, for sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't. I know I shouldn't. I know I...So what, precisely, do you mean? Given that I've shown you many places where you can read that the Pope did not "[sit] there saying nothing while the Jews were being rounded up", but actually did something positioning himself and the Church in opposition to it, which brought heavy repercussions for many Catholics. That anti-Catholic feeling continues to be acceptable in many countries does not mean that the Church, or the Pope, or individuals, necessarily conform(ed) to the "hilarious" things people say. 86.144.144.110 (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clear this up: Gautama Buddha is not a god, nor is any of the Buddhas considered a god by Buddhists. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Do Buddhists believe in any god or gods in the conventional sense? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I thought Dainichi Nyorai was the closest Buddhists got to a deity. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Formally, Buddhists do not believe in the existence of a god or gods. However, at the level of folk religion, some people who identify as Buddhists may worship entities with godlike qualities. Marco polo (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Do they formally or informally believe in an afterlife? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Scriptures of Buddhism refer to gods (small g) in various realms e.g. in Buddha's statement that he would depart to "a place where he would be seen by no man nor god" (Mahaparinibbana Sutta). Buddhist scriptures describe a range of after-life destinations, some involving more or less fortunate rebirths depending on one's accumulated karma. Tibetan buddhists have a Book of the Dead Bardo Thodol that gives details of between-lives experience. It appears that Gautama Buddha the founder of Buddhism consistently refused to affirm or deny his belief in an almighty creator "God", consistent with his dictate to disciples never to debate "eternal things". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

To the OP's question Buddha is believed by buddhists to have been an enlightened but otherwise normal human, so disparaging the person is disrespectful but there is no Blasphemy in Buddhism. For example, the wilful destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan statues was regarded as a sad cultural loss only. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As a former Zen Buddhist (including a brief stint as a monk) I can vouch that Buddhists can't care less about such things. (We routinely said the word Buddha out loud, by the way, but he isn't a God, so it didn't matter.) They're more concerned with clearing their mind, and living their lives in the most productive way possible. There certainly is literature in the libraries of Zen monasteries that explains principles of the dharma, the sutra, and so on. But, those are emphasized by Western scholars and Christian visitors much more than Buddhists themselves. I have also worked with Thai and Lao communities (who are members of the Theravadan branch of Buddhism). The monks in those communities spend most of the day sitting still meditating (just like Zen Buddhists). They don't think about anything -- just clearing their mind. That's how Buddha spent his day, as well. Buddha mentioned that you are re-incarnated when you die (the dharma) and that there is a Noble Eightfold Path ([1] knowledge of the truth; [2] the intention to resist evil; [3] saying nothing to hurt others; [4] respecting life, morality, and property; [5] holding a job that does not injure others; [6] striving to free one's mind of evil; [7] controlling one's feelings and thoughts; and [8] practicing proper forms of concentration). But, again, you cannot do the first six things if you cannot properly perform last two. That is why it is so important to take control of yourself first, and then implement the first principles. You'd be surprised how many Christians came to our temple (including Catholic monks and nuns). Protestants in particular emphasize the Bible, and they are puzzled by the Buddhist emphasis on shutting the fuck up and staring at a wall. Then, we would chant for a few minutes and the sensei would give a short lecture. The lecture was often surreal and nonsensical (nonsense being a tool used to clear your mind). I never got involved with Tibetan Buddhists because their community was too commercialized and there weren't any Tibetans in their sangha. They were all Americans.

So, try not to approach Buddhism asking where their God is, what their bible is, etc. It's a whole different ball game.--Drknkn (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Arabic invokes Allah in many normal expression ("God willing", "whatever God wants", etc), and this reminds me of an article: Niall Christie, "The Origins of Suffixed Invocations of God's Curse on the Franks in Muslim Sources for the Crusades," Arabica, vol 48 (2001), No 2, pp 254-66. (Basically, Muslim sources always say "may God curse their bones" or something similar whenever the crusaders are mentioned.) I don't know if that counts but I suppose it's the same general idea. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a Spanish idiom "ojalá que" which vaguely translates to "I wish that" but comes from the Arabic expression, obviously added before the Reconquista. I've never heard it explained as having any religious meaning, and when an English speaker says "darn it" there isn't usually any religious implication. It's funny to go back to Chaucer and here people exclaiming "'sfut!" (Christ's foot) in dismay, so the non-religious religious statements in English are clearly not a modern invention. SDY (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If these answers about the choice of words for swearing are not sufficient, I suggest you ask again on the Language Desk. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:35, 28 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 oblong: length: 12 3/4"--width: 6 3/4"--depth: 2 1/8--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 Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.134.33 (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(Removed email address) According to the article Holiday Casino, it is now Harrah's. You might get in touch with them. They may have a museum on site about the history of the casino. Bielle (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

How TALL was King George IV ?

Dear SIrs,

I would hesitate to criticise any aspect of Wikipedea but the article on King George IV of the UK misses one important detail

How TALL was the man- makes a BIG difference if he's six foot or a "mere" five foot five high. This minor detail gives a better idea of his actual bulk- forget BMI, that confuses the likes of the undersigned!

I tried to determine the height but failed- perhaps your goodselves have the resources to nail the point!

Rgds

Bill Evan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.118.46 (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of reformatting your question to make it more legible. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Galeros

Apparently, in Roman Catholic cathedrals, the tradition is to hang the galeros of cardinals from the ceiling when they die, where they (clarification, the galeros) remain until they have completely decomposed. How long does this take on average? Thanks. 169.231.34.158 (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: What noun does the third "they" refer to ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering how long it takes a galero to completely disintegrate. Sorry about all the theys. I assume it takes a long time, but the Church has been around for a long time, so I'm hoping someone knows this information. Thanks. 169.231.34.158 (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.130.57 (talk)

Upon some g**gling I found that the grave of John Henry Newman (who had died in 1890), when opened in 2008, contained a few red tassels of his galero. His body seems to have decomposed completely. Our article states "no remains were found because of the coffin having been wooden and the burial having taken place in a damp site". Based on this I assume that the hat, when hanging in a cool, well ventilated church would last for a quite lengthy time. This picture [7] shows 5 galeros suspended in the Holy name Cathedral in Chicago. For obscure reasons, searching for the Chicago Cardinals in the WP shows entirely different headgear. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that fabrics hanging in cathedrals would last a very long time indeed, perhaps due to the cool dry air. In the UK, it is the tradition for the local infantry regiment to hang it's retired "colours" (i.e. the regimental flags once carried in battle) in its "home" cathedral. Some of these date from the 18th Century[8]. In Canterbury Cathedral hangs part of the armour of Edward, the Black Prince[9] who died in 1376. At least part of that seems to be made of textiles. It seems to be in a display case now, but in my 1960s childhood it hung in the open above his tomb.Alansplodge (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

UK House of Commons - Opposition Day Motions

I was watching Parliament the other day and the motion being debated at the time was something like "The Government has handled the financial crisis badly". The Government tabled an amendment which was the complete opposite of the original motion. Guess which one got voted in? Now, what was the point of all this? I know it is the Opposition's job to hold the Government to account, but it just seems pointless to me when anything you table will get voted down and amended. There was a vote (when Blair was in I believe, something to do with Royal Mail?) that Labour back benchers voted with the Tories, so that at least was pragmatic! Rixxin (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically, for once in British politics, it's not the vote that counts. On Opposition Days, the Conservatives or the Lib Dems will table a motion (recently it was ...calls on the Government to scrap the identity card scheme,) knowing that it won't happen – obviously the government won't drop the idea, they have a majority, why would they?

And the government will propose an amendment, like ...replace the motion with, "very concerned at the rise of identity theft...") so that they can have a position in the debate and the division/vote that comes at the end. But Opposition Days are about the oppurtunity for the Tories to require a government minister stand up and defend his position. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 09:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

For clarification, the term "table" means exactly opposite things in British Parliamentary parlance vs. US Congressional parlance. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

TreasuryTag is correct - the point of opposition days is to have a debate, not primarily to win a vote. We have had several Governments with landslide majorities recently and the opposition days do not stop merely because there is no chance of the opposition winning. Nor would there be much effect if the opposition did win: the motions are simply expressions of opinion. I think the Gurkha debate on 29 April this year is the sole example in history of an opposition motion on an opposition day being passed by the House (see Hansard HC 6ser vol 491 cols 890-931). In itself the motion did nothing, but it led the Government to announce a change of policy. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I can't think of any other examples. Sometimes the opposition manages to get an amendment to a government bill passed, but usually only with government support. Occasionally rebel majority party MPs means a government loses a vote and either a government bill fails or is amended against the government's will. That is the only way the opposition can actually have a direct impact on legislation/government policy - they can have quite a lot of influence at the committee stage, but I don't think they can force through anything at that point without at least some support from the majority party. --Tango (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Before the present system of 'Opposition days' was brought in, there was a system of 'Opposition Supply Days'. If we except motions of no confidence (an opposition motion debated in Government time), then the last occasion on which an opposition motion was supported was 11 February 1976 when a motion to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State for Industry by half was passed by 214 to 209. This was, however, an occasion of confusion because there had been a miscount and some MPs were unaware that the division was continuing. The previous occasion was on 27 June 1974 when an opposition motion stressing the need for a fundamental reform of the rating system, urging Her Majesty’s Government to introduce interim relief for the worst affected in that year, and to provide that water and sewerage charges should rank for rate rebate, was passed by 298 to 289. It was not until 1989 (Scotland) and 1990 (England and Wales) that the rating system was fundamentally reformed, and we all know what a success that reform was. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, of course, we don't all know what a success that was or wasn't because most readers of the Reference desk reside outside the UK and may not even know what a "rating system" (for local property-tax assessment and collection, I think, in U.S. terms) is. The period between February 1974 and April 1976, for those who may not know or remember, was a time of closely-divided parliaments whose votes could be swung by the dissent or abstention of a few rebel, independent, or minor-party MP's. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

People, thanks for the answers. --Rixxin (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Governor-General of the United Kingdom

When the Statute of Westminster 1931 was being brought into existence, was any consideration given to creating a "Governor-General of the United Kingdom"? Or since? All the other Commonwealth realms have one, and their Prime Ministers normally communicate directly with their G-Gs, and only occasionally with the monarch. We're all lead to believe that the Realms are all equal in standing in every way, the UK having no kind of special status any more. Indeed, it's often been said that the Commonwealth would continue unabated even if the UK were somehow to be expelled from the Commonwealth. Yet, the UK PM talks directly to the Queen rather than to a vice-regal representative, and she (at least nominally, although it's done in her name by the Lords Commissioners in most cases) gives Royal Assent to acts of the UK Parliament, whereas acts of the other parliaments are normally assented to by the relevant G-G (only in special cases is such an act reserved for the monarch's personal signature). Some might say "What's the point? They're both based in London, so why complicate matters by introducing a middle man?". I can see that, and of course the Commonwealth is intimately connected to the UK historically. But symbolically - and that's really the essence of governor-generalship - it would be very fitting. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please thank Hansard on my behalf. Okay, so it's 1968, but basically the same thing, just retrospectively. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 20:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Many cultures, the British included, have a deep-seated objection to creating pointless government positions. As you so correctly state above, with the Queen's ready availability in London, such a post would be utterly irrelevant. Besides, having the GG do all the things that GGs do in other Commonwealth countries would make the Queen even less relevant in Britain. Besides, we'd then have to pay A GG in addition to all the royals. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The first Leader in The Times on 29 January 1937, on the subject of the Regency Bill, said:

“ If KING GEORGE VI finds it possible to spend more time in the Dominions oversea than any of his predecessors, it will be clear that the symmetry of the Imperial Constitution requires a Governor General of the United Kingdom; and this in effect the new Bill provides, although the office is put in commission among five Counsellors of State. ”

The Times was extremely close to Buckingham Palace in the 1930s, so much so that King George V was despatched from this world to the next in order that his death would make their deadlines. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope no one will mind if I pick up on a point mentioned by Tango above...George V indeed faced an accelerated demise for the benefit of the Times...Such an incredible detail of history merits being repeated for general interest. According to our article on the subject:

Dawson admits hastening the King's end by giving him a lethal injection of cocaine and morphine, both to prevent further strain on the family and so that the news of his death could be announced in the morning edition of The Times newspaper.[50][51] He died at 11:55 p.m.[52] --Dpr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.194.50 (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

After 3 edit conflicts... The UK also has a special judicial role in the Commonwealth - Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council hears certain appeals from some other Commonwealth countries. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (which hears the cases) is made up of British judges. --Tango (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It may just be due to the fact that the Queen spends the majority of her time in the UK. The G-G is only the Queen's representative in her absence, and I seem to recall hearing that the G-G loses all "official" power the moment the Queen steps foot in the country. If that's correct, while the Queen is physically in the UK there is no need for a G-G (edit: as he'd be powerless most of the time). One may ask why there isn't a G-G for those times the Queen is out of the country, but it may just be that there isn't a real need - you can just wait for her to get back. I would speculate that if the Queen ever decided to relocate to Canada/Australia/etc. on a long-term basis, the UK might then gain a Governor General, though tradition and the ability to just phone her directly may trump that need. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's actually not true that the GGs lose their power (the little they have) when the Queen is present. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"what little they have": In fact, in some circumstances, they have more power than the Queen. For example, Sir John Kerr sacked the government of Gough Whitlam (the reasons are described in detail at 1975 Australian constitutional crisis). It has often been stated that, if the decision had been up to the Queen, she would never have taken that action. Not because her view of how best to resolve the crisis would necessarily have been any different from Kerr's, but because she basically does not have the power to appoint Prime Ministers other than those of the UK, and therefore would always leave decisions about sackings etc to the relevant Governor-General. Her private reactions to Kerr's decision are alleged to have included horror; but publicly, she clearly distanced herself from the issue, saying it was a matter for the Governor-General alone. And there is a well-defined school of thought that governors-general are not just there as representatives of the monarch, but have a range of powers in their own right that the monarch does not have. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Given recent changes in the UK, I can see a time when a GG for Scotland is a likelihood rather than a possibility (and if so, I think the best person for the job would probably be Princess Anne -she's generally liked north of the border and it would appease Scottish royalists as well). Grutness...wha? 00:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth would either a self-ruling Kingdom of Scotland or the Queen of Scots see the need for a Governor-General? She's perfectly capable of the far more challenging task of being Supreme Governor of the Church of England while in England & Wales, and the protectress of the Church of Scotland (different structure, different theology) when north of the Border, although it's true that appointed Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland represents the Crown in her absence. Were the Irish as part of some long-term settlement to rejoin the Commonwealth as a Dominion as they were before 1949 (a status in which Eamonn de Valera, of all people, kept Eire in hopes of easing reunion with loyalist Ulster), they'd surely not want the return of a Governor-General or Viceroy. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

So. I see I'm not the first person to consider this question. If it was good enough for The Times, ... Thanks for those refs, Jarry and Sam. You make a very good point, 128.104.112.179. My question was predicated on the need for a certain constitutional distance between the monarch and her prime ministers, which might in theory apply regardless of the shortness of any geographical distance. The Times' reference to "symmetry" was what I was on about. I assume that if there were a Commonwealth Realm in the English Channel (e.g. if the Channel Islands were converted into one, separate from the UK), they'd have a Governor-General regardless of the fact that they're within spitting distance of the UK. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

DOCTOR WHO QUESTION

Question moved to Entertainment desk Tevildo (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

October 27

Founder of Wikipedia

Who is the genius founder of Wikipedia ? Rishabh Somany —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnujSomany (talk • contribs) 07:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Try the Wikipedia page.Popcorn II (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a slightly controversial issue, but according to Wikipedia, it was founded by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Jimmy Wales argues that Larry Sanger shouldn't be considered a founder, but the reliable sources suggest otherwise so he is described as a founder in Wikipedia (our article on Larry discusses the controversy). --Tango (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Even Jimbo himself admitted more recently that he should not be considered the sole founder, and time was he openly called Larry the co-founder. However, I notice that a recent paragraph of comment from him in The Guardian called him "the founder" again, although the article it was attached to had several ridiculous errors regarding Wikipedia (such as getting the date it was opened to public editing out by 3 years). I tend to see it as not controversial at all: it's just that Jimbo and Larry fell out. 86.144.144.110 (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Has he? I haven't seen any such admission. He usually just avoids the topic these days. --Tango (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• I also wouldn't call either one a genius, and from what I've read, neither Jimbo nor Larry would call themselves genuises either. After all, they stood on the shoulders of giants: Douglas Adams founded h2g2 in 1999. --M@rēino 19:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Justices of the UK Supreme Court

Does anyone know how many of the justices are Jewish, or have Jewish roots/connections? I've identified Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers [10] and (by the look of his parents' names) Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and wondered if there were any others. Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, who recently stepped down, is very much Jewish, of course... Anyway, thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 10:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Rod Blagojevich gag order?

Interviewed on The Daily Show last month, Rod Blagojevich said that federal prosecutors had obtained a court order prohibiting him from quoting his wiretap tapes. He said that his lawyers had heard all the tapes, and he had heard some of them, and he was allowed to paraphrase the tapes but not quote them directly, even for use in his own impeachment trial. This question was raised on Talk:Rod Blagojevich corruption charges but I am still wondering whether the court order was independently reported in the news media, and whether the court's reasons for making the order were published online. --Mathew5000 (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have been reported quite widely, as searching Google News would show. The order is apparently because the court is worried about Blagojevich influencing potential jurors and therefore they've banned him from discussing evidence relating to the trial.[11] --Lesleyhood (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That article you linked to is referring to a court hearing from this month; his appearance on The Daily Show was last month, and he was apparently referring to a court order rendered in 2008 or early 2009 (before his impeachment conviction). --Mathew5000 (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

SABAM and the freedom of panorama

Is the following sentence true: “SABAM does not recognize the freedom of panorama”? --88.78.239.155 (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(For those who are clueless as I am, SABAM is apparently something of a Belgian equivalent to the RIAA.) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but "freedom of panorama"? Does this mean Panama? Or is this about public domain music? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm almost certain it means this sort. I think it is probably true; there is no freedom of panorama in Belgium as a whole, and I can imagine SABAM being against the introduction of such a law. To expand on Mr. 98, our article mentions that "The members of SABAM are not only composers, poets and musicians text, but also writers, poets, artists, publishers, visual artists, architects, designers, choreographers, photographers, film and television directors, etc.", the latter groups more interested in the legal concept of FoP.- Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 14:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Which Belgian building has to do with this section? --88.77.252.209 (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm having to guess what you mean, but if it helps, SABAM includes architects, and they design buildings. In some places, the building can't be photographed without the permission of the architect. Freedom of panorama usually goes against this. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Somebody is just going to have to ask them. Some architects would be all for "freedom of panorama" and some, against it. Our answers so far have just been speculation. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What about the Atomium in Brussels? --88.77.252.209 (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As you may have read Atomium#Worldwide copyright claims shows that SABAM are attempting to enforce the copyright of the architect(s) involved. Basically, they are saying that people have to ask the architect before photographing it. Since the architect(s) is/are part of SABAM, SABAM is trying to prevent the use of pictures of it. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suspect that SABAM doesn't take a position on freedom of panorama—the question is whether the local copyright laws recognize it, and SABAM is interested in enforcing said laws to the maximum degree possible (as is their purpose as an organization). Whether they have lobbied for it or against it, I do not know—I suspect you would need someone who was versed in Belgian copyright disputes to know, and there are probably no such people on this particular Reference Desk. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Identify this book

When I was in early elementary school (about 15 years ago), I remember reading a book where a lady has a cat named Sam who doesn't like fish, so when Sam left to join a group of cats in another building the lady used the fish to separate Sam from the rest of the cats. What was this book titled? 128.237.248.254 (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Aunt Eater Loves a Mystery. —Wayward ^Talk 10:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

MIT's budget

Does anybody knows what part of MIT's budget come from governmental grants and what part based on endowments?--Gilisa (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

http://web.mit.edu/facts/financial.html is a starting point, although "research revenues" is not split into government vs. private sources. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Napoleon's relative

Napoleon Bonaparte gave most of his siblings, and stepchildren title or arrange good marriage for them. Did he have any Ramolino or Bonaparte cousins from his mother or father side who he bestowed on royal titles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.22.26 (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Washington, D.C.

I have a question for my English project (and that is a thing which is not bad to be found on an Washington, D.C. article). Does District of Columbia means District of the CDP Columbia, Maryland?
Greetings from Mostar and thanks,--77.221.8.180 (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the U.S. capital is not in Maryland. The capital district was given the name "Columbia", which also appears in various other places in the U.S. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It refers to Columbia, a poetic name for the United States (e.g. CBS is the "Columbia Broadcasting System"). This is mentioned in the Washington, D.C. article, History section, paragraph 3: "On September 9, 1791, the federal city was named in honor of George Washington, and the district was named the Territory of Columbia, Columbia being a poetic name for the United States in use at that time." -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(multiple ec)The Columbia MD article you linked to indicates it was barely a gleam in anybody's eye until the 1960's. Washington DC was in existence for a few years prior to that. So what do you think? --LarryMac | Talk 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Another point - it's called the District of Colombia, because the word "District" is used in Article One of the United States Constitution, which provides that the capital of the USA is to be in an area that's not administered by any individual State. It doesn't just mean "the vicinity of", although I can see why that might be confusing. Tevildo (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Article 1 does actually not require the creation of a capital district; it just allows Congress and the relevant states to agree to create such a distrinct, and specifies that Congress alone has legislative power if it happens. --Anonymous, 00:00 UTC, October 28, 2009.

The key part of of the "D.C." part, is that it means that it legally does not technically exist in any particular state. It is meant to be thus totally independent from the local squabbles of states, and not privileging any one state. (In practice, it finds itself today with almost no political representation at all, which has its downsides, to be sure.) So it is not really in Maryland, or Delaware, or Virginia, the three states which surround it. It's not in any state. "D.C." is a unique political entity in the U.S., and "Washington" is its sole city (well, they are technically one and the same at this point, but I think it works fine on a conceptual level). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that it matters, Delaware is not actually adjacent to DC. --Anon, 00:01 UTC, October 28, 2009.

Ah, yeah. That's right. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, while the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit hears cases from the surrounding states of Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, there's a separate United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, covering just the non-state of Washington, D.C. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Also worth pointing out -- while Washington, D.C. is not now part of Maryland, it's composed entirely of land that was part of Maryland until 1801. See History of Washington, D.C. for details. --M@rēino 13:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

October 28

Poor people as an engine of economy

Just would like to know whether my assumptions about the poor or middle class are basically correct:

• 1) poor people are essential to contain inflation rate and the money value; as such, poor people regulate the prices, keeping them relatively low, and influence discounts
• 2) as the number of poor people grows, the purchasing capacity decreases, so at some theoretical point nearly every poor man would be able to buy chic and luxurious things because the salespeople are forced to slash down the prices
• 3) significant amount of poor people may affect such areas as the waste management, making it cheaper (less waste products) 217.25.31.177 (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

First ask: how do you define poor people?

In point 2 especially - if a "poor man" who could not previously afford luxuries now can, in ordinary parlance he may well be considered "no longer poor".

On point 3: you seem to assume that "poor people", however defined, exhibit the characteristic of producing less waste. Assuming this, it would mean that there is less demand for waste processing services, which, in the long run, would likely lead to a contraction in the market. Since waste management is likely to be a scale business - high economies of scale when proceessing a lot of rubbish compared to a little - this probably leads to higher cost per tonne of waste processed.

You may want to start by reading supply and demand. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

well, some articles come close to your questions:

1) substituting unemployed for poor, "The natural rate of unemployment therefore corresponds to the unemployment rate prevailing under a classical view of determination of activity. It is mainly determined by the economy's supply side, and hence production possibilities and economic institutions. If these institutional features involve permanent mismatches in the labor market or real wage rigidities, the natural rate of unemployment may feature involuntary unemployment." from Natural rate of unemployment.

2) "The term liquidity trap is used in Keynesian economics to refer to a situation where the demand for money becomes infinitely elastic, i.e. where the demand curve is horizontal, so that further injections of money into the economy will not serve to further lower interest rates."

3) i got nothing for this one.

Gzuckier (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

217, your assumption 1) is wrong; there is no necessary connection between inflation / the money value and whether a society has poor people or not. Moreover, it is widely recognized that supply and competition have the greatest influence on price changes. Assumption 2) is also incorrect, in that any single extra consumer (poor or otherwise) adds to total purchasing power, even if only by a small amount. While the average may fall, that isn’t the same as total demand falling. As for 3), the parameters are simply beyond useful calculation. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a great difference between just "poor" person, who just paid too low for his/her work, and an unemployed person. First, as smaller industry is and as lower precent of population is taking part in the manufacturing process-the higher it would cost to produce different products and there would be not much to trade them for. Second, the more complex and demanding it take to manufacture product, the more expensive it will be -it can be still very cheap for people from other society where people are rich, but always will relatively expensive to the people in the society in which it was produced (e.g., China vs. USA). High inflation rates are connected with more people can't do nothing with their money, meaning poor people and high inflation rates are going well together. Another outcome could be higher deflation rates in societies where most people are poor or unemployed -so there is a small sector who exploit state resources with a very strong purchasing power. This is for example the situation in many South American countries-where an average Western can live as a king without working for the rest of his life and there are districts for the minority of rich people (in local terms-but they live in a very high standards undoubtedly) and all the rest live in miserableness. Indeed, in South America you can buy anything you find in Western markets, it will cost you half usually-so you may tell "Wow, what a low inflation rates"-but just remember that even those fortunate people who work for their living there are being paid for their work about 1/10 than what you would be paid for the same work in any Western society and it would still be too expensive for them-so inflation is not an absolute concept, but one which can't be disconnected from the society for which it applied.

For instance, I bought DVD player which cost about 120 Euro in the Netherlands for only 60$ in Bolivia and original T-shirt of Barca for 15 $ in Argentine where in Europe it cost about 60-100$. So you may wonder how come, the simple answer is that these products are very cheap for manufacturing and manufactures can play with their profits by adjuest the prices to any economy they are marketed in. However, in rich markets it would necessarily cost you more as the accompanying expenses are much higher and as lower prices would lead the economy to deflation-which is at least as negative for economy as inflation is --Gilisa (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think otherwise, if everyone turns reach, the inflation rate would be extremely dangerous (due to huge money mass in circulation). The unemployed person may be often associated with the poor because the unemployed is also limited. So at some degree the inflation rate is related to the poor/reach ratio in my opinion. 94.20.22.147 (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The all issue is that there is no possibility that everybody would be rich, if there was, then communism could be a very good idea (but it's far from being so). The value of commodities is determined in almost linear relation to how wealthy society is and the more you buy the more you have to give and produce in return, so in a modern economy there is no possibility for everyone to be rich. In very primitive economies, where the economy is based on food ingredients, there is a tehortical chance for everyone to be rich by having a fertile agricultural year-but then we are not talking in terms of inflation or deflation as money have no real meaning in such primitive societies in which economy based on simple exchange trade and there can be, at least theoretically, situation in which the supply is hugh and the demand is very low. But as we are talking about bronze age like agriculturist economies it have no meaning in modern economical terms.--Gilisa (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That starts off pretty badly. Yes, there is no possibility that everybody can be rich under capitalism. Communism attempts to share resources equally among everyone, holding that it will then be in everyone's interests to expand the economy as a whole (or pursue other aims). Were that to prove successful, could you say that everybody was rich? It would be pretty meaningless. Warofdreams talk 13:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

In communistic terms there are no rich or poor people in communist economy-all are equal for the bad or for the good. The problem is that when anyone have the same economical status and when you are paid the same for easier job there is no reason for most people to be productive. In communistic societies mostly all people are poor and the important ones are paid much more unofficially, there are no luxuries available for most people and if there is then someone have to produce them while others only want to enjoy them without taking the same part in the production process -so by now it's not possible. Maybe in the future, when robots will do all the work for us it would be, but the simple rules of economy demnand that there will always be economical hierarchy and economical incentive to be productive. BTW, I think that you can still be wealthy even if all others are "rich" as well. As long as you can afford yourself to do whatever you want and/or you are satisfied the economical definition for who is rich mean nothing --Gilisa (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolute definitions of being rich are even more problematic than absolute definitions of poverty. Being able to afford to do whatever you want is very rarely the case, but will rather depend on technologies and, in particular, on what can be bought and sold in an economy. Being satisfied doesn't really hit the mark - it's the focus of happiness economics and is certainly of interest, but it's not what it commonly understood by being rich. The economic incentive question is often put, but there are other incentives (moral, acclaim, adjustment of workload, even coercion), which can all work to varying extents - economic incentives are hardly unproblematic, and there's no good evidence that they are necessary. The luxuries question you put is easily resolvable - incomes would be equal, the exact mix of goods consumed wouldn't be identical, so people who want a particular luxury could prioritise having it. You do correctly state one problem with all the officially communist societies which have been created - they haven't actually produced this equality, as there's always been a privileged elite. But I fear this is rather going off track from the original question. Marx's labour theory of value sees poor people - workers - as the engine of an economy, in that their work creates value. Of course, you can run an economy without any production, but he has a point in that without any production globally, there wouldn't be an economy. Warofdreams talk 20:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Origin of Surname "Karasarlidis"

Can somebody help me in my little research for my surname origin.My surname is KARASARLIDIS and i want to know is there a possybility for connection with ancient Lydia with capitol Sardis.As i know that was on todays Turkey teritory near Izmir.My grandgrand father came from Smirna, Turkey,which is aproximatly 70km from Izmir.He came during excange of people from Turkey to Greece 1920es i think.His surname was also Karasarlidis.Maybe this is my romantic quest but if anybody can help me i would be wery thankful.Best regards to all good people and sorry all for poor English —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.86.87 (talk) 04:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your name seems to be Turkish in origin. "Karasarli" is a somewhat common Turkish name. "Karasarlidis" seems to be a Greek version of it. Perhaps you had a Turkish ancestor who became part of a Greek community for some reason. The word "kara" means "land" in Turkish. "Kara Sarli" seems to have been the Turkish name for Skobelevo in Bulgaria. It could be that this is a descriptive name that could have applied to other places. The word "sar" means "belt" or "strip" in Turkish. "-li" is an instrumental ending. So "kara sarli" could mean something like "with a belt or strip of land" in Turkish. Marco polo (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor

In Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor, what was the result of Subramaniam's retrial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.3.186.10 (talk) 04:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Time signatures, why do some feel more natural (to me) than others?

To me time signatures like 4/4, 3/4 and 12/8 feel very natural. Anything else to is difficult to grasp. Which makes me wonder, why? Is it because in modern (western) popular music these times signatures are so prevalent (ok, 3/4's and 12/8's are not THAT prevalent but at least you hear them on the radio now and then). Or does popular music use these time signatures because they feel natural? PvT (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

See Nature versus nurture. My guess is that it's more of a nurture issue, where the "natural" rhythms are just what you're used to hearing rather than any hard-coded predilection to 4/4 time, but I'm sort of biased towards nurture interpretations (I blame Gattaca). I'd presume that learning music is a bit like learning language, though some (Noam Chomsky?) have even proposed that at least a part of language is "hard coded." SDY (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Most modern language theoreticians would suggest that at least to large extent language is hard coded, even to the level of distinguishing between real and pseudo words-but not in the sense of two separated toddlers who have no one to learn language from will develope the same language or natural language as we know it. So, it's both environmental and biological-and as all humans talk Steven Pinker has suggested that language is an instinct. Howeber, connectivity computational models argue that there is no real hard coding for lnaguage-I think that this is a wrong concept. P.S. Noam Chomsky made hugh mistakes so his overall contribution to linguistics is negative.--Gilisa (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I strongly disagree. The "mistakes" of Chomsky are more akin to Newton's "mistake" about gravity - yes, he is not perfect, but his errors still provide the framework and foundation for an enormous body of later work. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I was refering to Chomsky's assertions according which there is internal mechanism for language acquisition with few parameters that are being fine-tuned to the specific language, I think it's a wrong concept, an if it's, then it only slow down our understanding of how language is produced (even that I believe language is not a solvable question).

As for his universal grammar description (themetic roles which must accompanied with verb and etc, it's a shame that they can't be found in dictionaries -they could be very helpful)-I think that this is a great idea. --Gilisa (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a matter of custom. You have been bouncing and bopping along to Western time signatures since you were an infant. If you grew up in a different musical culture (and there are many that just sound completely far-out to an untrained Western ear), you'd bop along to their beats. If you listen to non-Western music you quickly see that you affinity to Western time signatures is arbitrary. I seem to recall studies saying that listening to music as a child was important if you were to become a good dancer—not quite the same thing, but it does imply that nurture is a big deal when it comes to finding certain rhythms to be natural. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

And its also not universal that every song which is "comfortable" to western ears is in either 3-time or 4-time or some multiple thereof. Consider that one of Pink Floyd's most popular songs is in 7/4 time, Money, and most people find it a catchy and pleasant song. --Jayron32 14:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Also Take Five (5/4 beat), which is very recognizable but (for me) very hard to reproduce... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Music in 4/4 and 12/8 do no necessarily "feel natural", and music in other meters are not necessarily "hard to grasp" ("Money" by Pink Floyd being a great example). I'd say that it is easier to make natural sounding music in some meters and harder in others, but ultimately it is the composing and playing skills of the musicians that make music sound natural or difficult. Why is it generally easier to do in 4/4 and 12/8? Because, I would argue, they involve regular pulses with predictable accents repeating in short cycles. 4 beat cycles are often basically two 2 beat cycles. Lots of popular songs are closer to 2/4 than 4/4. And 12/8 is usually just a "swung" or "shuffle" 4/4. I'd suspect music in 3/4 also feel very natural quite often--so natural that one might not realize a song is in 3 instead of 2 or 4. The Beatles' song Blackbird, for example, shifts between 3/4, 4/4, and 2/4, but feels quite natural to me. Pfly (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Listen to the second movement of Tchaikovsky's 6th Symphony, the "Pathétique". It sounds completely natural, right? A waltz, right? Then go back and actually count the beats, and you'll discover it's not a waltz at all, but it's written in 5/4. Thanks to the consummate skill of the composer, who died a few days after the first performance, he writes a piece in 5/4, a normally "unnatural" meter, in a completely natural-sounding way. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I will take the line that JackofOz start with: 7/8 is common in Middle Eastern music but not in Western music. Also, in Western music the length of any unit is 4, but not in African music-so it's quite clear that this differences were developed. --Gilisa (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Top Ten Controversies in US History?

Does anyone know where I can go to find this? --Reticuli88 (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless you're referring to a particular feature, book or article that someone has written with that title, then this is basically an invitation to debate, which is not what this reference desk is for. --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Also, "controversies" is too wide a term. It could mean anything, and what is controversial to one person may not be at all to the next. Please find a more appropriate discussion forum. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You say that, but I'm sure in the next hour or so people are going to respond with a list they've thought up ;)

What do you (Reticuli88) mean by controversies, though? Big news stories with conflicting support (OJ trial)? Laws (Roe v Wade)? Disputed history (was Lee Harvey Oswald a patsy)? TastyCakes (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking for any publications, online or not, on top controversies in US history, like the Kennedy assasination, or like that. --Reticuli88 (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Typing "American controversy" into Google Scholar yields the Hemmings/Jefferson debate, evolution/creationism, and hate speech among the top hits. Google Books adds slavery and the reintegration of slaves after the civil war. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We have a list of political scandals of the United States and Category:Political scandals in the United States. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean conspiracy theories? Either way, any list will be necessarily very arbitrary. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard Hofstadter's three-volume Great Issues in American History doesn't have a top-ten list but does go over many of the top controversies in American history (up until 1981) using primary-source documents. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the OP needs to clarify what they are considering "controversies" for us to be of any real help. "JFK assassination" is not specific enough. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the non-answers but I will start with Gadget850's suggestion. Just thought there would be a list or publication somewhere such as wiki's list of specfics types of disasters that I was recently reading. --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason these are "non-answers" is that - as I and others have said - "controversies" is too wide and non-specific a term. You're not going to get any kind of definitive list, because what is controversial is a matter of opinion. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Disasters" are much easier to quantify, since you can do it by "people killed", "property damage" etc. What classifies as a "controversy" is different for each person, any list would be inherently opinionated. It would not classify as "fact" or be quantifiable the way "disasters" can, and so is unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. Incidentally, that's also why you wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) find Wikipedia lists along the lines of "Best actors of all time". TastyCakes (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Unaware Prophesied Messiahs, Saviors, Redeemers, etc

I am also searching for any stories, legends, etc of any prophesied messiahs, saviors, etc (besides Jesus) who were unaware that they were who they were up until that critical moment. --Reticuli88 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to investigate Siyyid `Alí Muḥammad Shírází, one of the founders of the Baha'i faith, who was executed for claiming to be the Bab, the foretold next prophet of Islam. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that Jesus did fall into this description? —Akrabbim^talk 21:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Until what critical moment? I'm pretty sure few legends of messiahs, saviors, redeemers, prophets (if we're including them) claim they were aware of who they were at birth (unless the legend says they weren't born I guess). Nil Einne (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The moment of prophecy, presumably. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nil, your answer makes so sense to me whatsoever. --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Matrix? TastyCakes (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Mary was aware before she was even pregnant [12], I don't think Jesus falls into that category, unless she never told him. Baptism of Jesus has some discussion on whether Jesus would have considered himself free of sin without needing to be baptised. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Matrix is a very good example. Thanks! Anymore similar to that? --Reticuli88 (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Belgariad? Harry Potter? Anyone listed at The Chosen One (Warning, TV Tropes link). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought Jesus din't know he was the Messiah until later in his life. That he was almost reluctant to be this. Am I wrong (which most likely I am)? --Reticuli88 (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Marcus Borg (among others) would argue that, based on my reading of him--I think he and probably most of the Jesus Seminar folks would claim that Jesus didn't ever think of himself as the Messiah. This is speculation, of course, and may not be good enough for what the OP is looking for. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard? Jim Jones?  ;) TastyCakes (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Province of Punjab, Pakistan

Didn't Province of Punjab, Pakistan used to have 35 districts and now they have 36? which district is new? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.202 (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Under Districts of Pakistan it says:

In May 2005, the Punjab provincial government created a new district by raising the status of Nankana Sahib from a tehsil of Sheikhpura District to a district in its own right.

and an article in Dawn (newspaper) is cited. --Anonymous, 16:31 UTC, October 28, 2009.

samurai really cut peasants?

Did samurai really test new swords by cutting through peasants, or is that apocryphal? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Criminals, yes, but I haven't heard anything about plain old peasants. Vranak (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Tsujigiri --151.51.28.42 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't you mean Tameshigiri? -- 128.104.112.149 (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Can a psychopath know right from wrong?

--190.50.94.45 (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes.--Gilisa (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

On an actually helpful note, let me refer you to the Psychopathy article. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

USA airplane crash records from the 1950s

I'm trying to find records on light airplane crashes in Ohio in the early 1950s. The FAA website doesn't yield anything, the NTSB database begins in 1962, and Google doesn't seem to yield anything. Any idea if I can find this information online, and if so, where? Nyttend backup (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There are some light airplane crashes mentioned in the Department of Transport Special Collections website, but most accident reports there are of larger aircraft. Here's the link; go to "Historical Aircraft Accident reports", then search by year. --NellieBly (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! As you probably guessed, my crash isn't on this page...any other ideas, anyone? Nyttend backup (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you contacted the National Archives and Records Administration? They might have agency records that predate any online database. Unfortunately, there is no NARA library in Ohio, but perhaps if you call them they can direct you to a local resource that can help you. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Who had jurisdiction for investigating light aircraft crashes back then? Perhaps no one but the local police authorities has records. Rmhermen (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably the Civil Aeronautics Board. You probably would have to contact NARA about this, or dedicated plane-crash buffs (of which there are). There are, if I recall, sites that will let you order crash reports on historic crashes (for a price). But I don't know the specifics, unfortunately... --Mr.98 (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! I was spending some time volunteering at my local historical society today (the only one in the room who knew how to use a computer :-() and was shown a photograph of a small aircraft being hauled out of a lake by a floating crane. If I understood the other volunteers rightly, it was a newspaper photo, but they didn't have any other parts of the newspaper, so I was being asked to find this crash online so that we could learn when the newspaper was dated. I should note that they had asked someone else to try to check CAA records (I suppose this to mean Civil Aeronautics Authority; they thought this was what the acronym meant, but they weren't sure), but this hadn't yielded anything, as far as they knew. Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

While it is impressive that we have an article on the United States government role in civil aviation, unfortunately the articles never mentions general aviation so we can't tell if light aircraft crashes were investigated by CAB or only commercial ones. Rmhermen (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent article on loss of sense of self following brain injury

Can anyone refer me to an article which deal with similar subject that was published during the last two years?--Gilisa (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean a loss / change in the sense of self as one of the psychological sequelae of a trauma in general, or the acute loss of propio(re)ception as a result of posterior parietal lesion? --Dr Dima (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dr.Dima, I meant change in the sense of self as a result of traumatic brain injury, and if you know one such article from the last two years which review (preferably)this issue and address the psychological aspects of these lesions it would be of great help.--Gilisa (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, psychological aspects of brain injury are pretty far from my field of expertise, so I can't recommend any particular article. Sorry about that. However, when I google-scholar it like this, lots of interesting stuff comes up. And yes, Google Scholar is a verb now :) --Dr Dima (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know that it become a verb so I didn't try it!:). Anyway it's not my field of expertise either-but like you I'm in the neuroscience business and Just submitted my first article for publication. Thanks for the help! --Gilisa (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with your article! --Dr Dima (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

memorial to Flight 990

Is there a memorial for the victims of EgyptAir Flight 990 located anywhere? If yes, what does it look like?24.90.204.234 (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There's one at Newport, Rhode Island[13][14]. --82.41.11.134 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

why isn't "atleast" one word?

I think it shoudl be wikt:atleast —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.235.46 (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have never seen "at least" written in one word. If it becomes an accepted usage, then we will adopt it into Wikipedia, but unless I am very much mistaken, "atleast" is not generally considered to be correct. Falconus^{p t c} 22:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Why should it be? Rebracketing only happens occasionally. --Tango (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this would better be asked at the language reference desk? Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

In future, yes, this kind of question should go there. I don't think there is any need to move this one over, though, I doubt they'll have a better answer that it has already got. --Tango (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Saying "I think it should" is equivalent to saying "people should spell it that way". But clearly very few people do, so they're not going to be swayed by your suggestion. There's been a trend in recent years to respell things like "a lot" and "a while" as "alot" and "awhile", but they've still never been recognised in any dictionary I've ever seen. To adopt "atleast" would also require "atmost", "atbest", "atworst" and "atall", for consistency. Language change is a natural process, but these would be change for its own sake. "Afew Good Men"? I don't think so. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Alot" is a common spelling mistake, but I've never seen "awhile" before - is that really coming into fashion? Also - since when has the English language been in any way consistent? --Tango (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Awhile" is a spelling that I use all the time. I had no idea that it was nonstandard, though now that I think about it, a high school teacher did dock me a point for that once. I much prefer "awhile" to "a while", though apparently that's not a world-wide accepted usage. I guess one mark of how common it may be is the fact that my spell checker does not flag "awhile." I'm in North Carolina, USA. I'm wondering if this usage varies by location, as I have not had any issues with using it here? Falconus^{p t c} 03:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have always used "awhile" (one word) as an adverb. My most recent edition of the COD (1989) approves this use, as did Samuel Johnson in my copy of his Dictionary of the English Language (1827). The meanings are not presented as identical, however. Bielle (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "awhile" is quite common. It appears 3 times on the current version of the Miscellaneous ref desk, for example. But I'll be sticking with "a while" for quite a while yet, thanks very much, reactionary old thing that I am. I guess personal preference comes down to what one has seen most often. I grew up with "a while", which has always seemed completely natural to me because it's sort of synonymous with "a long time" (and one would never write "along time"). But younger folks have been proportionately more exposed to "awhile", so to them, it's not eyelid-batworthy. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Awhile" has been an acceptable word for centuries, but it doesn't mean quite the same thing as "a while". It's adverbial only, and means "for a while". To quote Partridge's classic, if dated, "Usage and abusage", "Awhile" for "a while" is catachrestic when while is a noun. 'I shall stay here for awhile' is incorrect for '...for a while'. Such a sentence as 'They followed the inlet for awhile along the edge of the bank' brings one up with a jerk; "for a while" or, simply, "awhile" would have been correct. So, given that I'm on this reference desk awhile, let me tell you that it's acceptable. "Alot" and "Atleast" are not, however. Grutness...wha? 22:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Aha. So, "I sat there for awhile" means "I sat there for for a while", and that's why it has to be "I sat there for a while". -- JackofOz (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

A sometimes-common American contraction that has not yet become accepted or standard yet (i.e. it would get corrected by an editor or circled in red by a teacher) is "alright" for "all right" by analogy with "already". But "all ready" and "already" usually mean different things, with the latter adverbial in roughly the same way that "awhile" is — for example, "We'd already been sitting in the office awhile when..." I can't yet see a similar use for "alright" or "atleast", although perhaps the colloquial use of "all right" as a reinforcer of another phrase might justify "alright's" eventual introduction in phrases such as "You could tell that we were quite unhappy with the whole situation, alright, ..." where writing "we were quite unhappy with the whole situation, all right, ..." might be confusing. I'm not arguing for "alright's" introduction, just positing a possible purpose or rationale. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Vatican City and the freedom of panorama

Has Vatican City the freedom of panorama? --88.76.242.171 (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

According to people at Wikimedia Commons, the answer is no, because it has Italy's copyright laws, and Italy does not have freedom of panorama. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What about Andorra, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, and San Marino? --88.77.238.36 (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• • If it's not on that list, then we don't know. But in general, Liechtenstein follows most Swiss laws, Monaco follows most French laws, and San Marino follows most Italian laws. --M@rēino 14:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any copyrighted buildings in Vatican City? --88.78.239.248 (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You can copyright a building??? Googlemeister (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, they're creative works, and like (almost) all creative works they're copyrighted when they're new (so I can't just make a new copy of the Burj Dubai in Las Vegas). The specific issue here is panoramafreiheit; whether a mere photo of a copyrighted building infringes on the architect's copyright. In some places it does, in some it doesn't. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Investing in precious metals

How are people obtaining precious metals for investment purposes? What's the least risky way to invest in gold, silver, and other precious metals? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't offer financial advice, above all "least risk" advice.--Wetman (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Since when can't we offer financial advice? I don't think that's in our "no advice" charter. Granted, our advice is probably worthless. But what people do with their money is their own business. I'm sure someone who does investing knows the least risky option here—there is always risk, of course, but there are definitely levels of risk (risk is, after all, a commodity in the financial world). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you really comfortable with people using the Refdesk to advise other people to buy INTC or AAPL because they are undervalued? Your argument about their actions being "their own business" could also apply to legal or medical advice, right? We aren't supposed to offer "professional advice", which probably just means "advice you ought to be getting from a professional" — like the guy trying to find out how to hang that sign across the road a few months ago. It's not just legal and medical advice we should be avoiding, despite the fact that this page only says "legal and medical" up at the top today. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Without offering advice, I will say that there are three main methods: 1) investing in shares of companies that mine precious metals; 2) investing in exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, that purchase and hold precious metals in proportion to share purchases; and 3) purchasing physical precious metals. There may be other methods besides these three, such as relocating to a region where trace amounts of surface gold occur and panning for gold. Each method has its own risks, in addition to the risk that the price of precious metals could fall after you make your purchase, which is a risk for all three. For method 1), the risks include the risk that the company will prove insolvent or face other unforeseen difficulties, including poor management and many others, as well as the other risks associated with buying stock in any company. There is also a risk that precious metal stock prices will prove more volatile than the price of the precious metal itself. For method 2), there are some similar risks as for method 1), including potential bankruptcy or fraud on the part of the company that underwrites the ETF. For method 3), in addition to the risk of falling prices shared with the other methods, you face the risk of theft or other partial or complete loss of your physical investment. There is also the historical risk of a gold confiscation order (which poses a less direct but still real risk to investments using methods 1) and 2)). Because these methods have risks that are different in nature, it is really a subjective judgment which method involves least risk. To the extent that risk differs among the three methods, market forces should have incorporated the risk into the price. If any of these methods offered a given return at a lower rate of risk, market forces should have bid up its price to the point where risk was equalized with the other methods. Also, the assessment of risk may differ for two different people depending on their circumstances, assumptions about the future, personal inclinations, and so on. You really need to inform yourself about the alternatives and make a judgment for yourself. Marco polo (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Where does one buy physical gold or silver? Certainly it's not just from the companies that you see advertised on TV. 71.54.238.131 (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Your local coin dealer stocks bullion coins and possibly small ingots. They will quote you the day's buying and selling price for each type (Krugerrands, for example) if you call them on the phone. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just reading about the recent increase in people panning for gold in the U.S. Here is one such article: [15] Rmhermen (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

We should avoid offering individualized investment advice, for the same reasons we avoid legal and medical advice. Generalized discussion of investment concepts, however, do not seem to be as problematic, and I have no problems with Marco polo's fine discussion. Conventionally, it is assumed that ETFs are the lowest-risk way to invest in precious metals, since ETFs largely avoid the risks of investment in mining and operations companies and the risks of personal ownership of the metals. It must be understood, however, that ownership of precious metals in any form is a highly risky form of investment, since precious metals prices are so volatile. In addition, precious metals generally have underperformed other investments in most periods, so there is a highly unfavorable risk-versus-reward analysis. John M Baker (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If one is going the route of purchasing physical metal, there are several options, including purchasing pre 1964 US coins on ebay or from a local seller of coins. Googlemeister (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The least risky way is to invest with high confidence in a commodity that will be increasing in value. You need to know why, though, it will be increasing in value. I used to get wisdom from a local radio show, Money Talks. I noted that gold would be increasing; it did, massively. I noted that uranium would be increasing. Ditto. Still, you have to have the empathy and intellect to distinguish good advice from sketchy speculation. In short, the distilled wisdom from competent professionals is the easiest and surest way to make money in this fashion. Vranak (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty good joke. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

According to efficient market theory, publicly traded investments reflect all available information. Thus, it would be impossible for a radio talk show reliably to provide investment information that would out-perform the market. Of course, someone following the advice of the talk show might get lucky, as Vranak apparently did. John M Baker (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get lucky because I didn't invest. It was purely an intellectual exercise. Second, if you have guests talking about why a certain commodity will likely become more valuable, then you're not dealing with luck at all, you're dealing with valid information. The reason uranium was touted to be a good investment was that China was investing heavily in Pebble Bed reactors to meet their burgeoning energy demands. It's pretty simple stuff. Vranak (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

But the information, in this case that China was investing in reactors, was equally available to other investors, who were able to take it into account in valuing uranium. Thus, the price already reflected the possibility that demand would rise because of China's increased needs. You can consistently outperform the market only if you have information that is not available to the market, or if you are smarter than everyone else in the world who invests in the market.

However confident someone may be about increases in the price of uranium, it's probably not wise to start stockpiling it. Warofdreams talk 21:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Challenge to the Reader novels

When I was a kid I used to read old Ellery Queen novels. Before the last chapter the author posed a challenge to the reader. All of the clues to solve the mystery had been presented throughout the book and the reader was challenged to solve the mystery before reading the conclusion. Are there any current authors who have similar styles? (Encyclopedia Brown doesn't count, as it is written for kids) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.29.109 (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not exactly the same, but the Colin Dexter always claimed that the mysteries in his Inspector Morse novels could be solved by the reader before the solution was revealed. He didn't write anything explicitly in the novels to say when that was, though. Also Colin Dexter is more than a bit clever, so they are pretty difficult to solve. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There is an entire genre of those, called whodunits. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

October 29

comparison and contrast on multiculturalism in USA and multiculturalism in Canada

Is there any website where it compares and contrasting on multiculturalism in USA and multiculturalism in Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.139 (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Have a look -- Cultural mosaic. Vranak (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

final total from benefit concerts

Is there a final total from the "I Love the Islands" benefit concert series? Will someone write an article on the concert series?24.90.204.234 (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Your mission, should you accept it, is to collect the online news reports concerning the series and report their contents at I Love the Islands concert series with <ref></ref> to the sources you've used. This tape will self-destruct...--Wetman (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried to do an article on the "I Love the Islands" benefit concert series, but it was deleted. Plus, with several news reports on the event, they can be quite a bit confusing.24.90.204.234 (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Th. Roosevelt and John Davis Long - conflicting versions

Before his career as US (Vice-)President Theodore Roosevelt was Assistant Secretary of the Navy under John Davis Long. According to the Roosevelt article, "(Because of the inactivity of Secretary of the Navy John D. Long at the time, this gave Roosevelt control over the department.)"

The Long article, however, states that "Long served with vision and efficiency through the next five years, organizing the Navy for the challenges of the Spanish-American War and the expansion that followed, and laying the groundwork for the growth of the "New American Navy" fostered by his former assistant, President Theodore Roosevelt."

Surely, both can't be right? Could someone with historic insight please elaborate? Asav (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I recommend you post this on the discussion page of both articles so that other editors interested in the topic can get involved over the coming months (and years). Here on the Refdesk posts are no longer read or commented upon after a week's time or so, and I imagine it'll take more than a week to drum up an editor knowledgeable in this field. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You can also use the {{contradicts|(Other article name)}} tag on both articles. Add {{contradicts|John Davis Long}} to the Roosevelt article and {{contradicts|Theodore Roosevelt}} to the John Davis Long article. Exxolon (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Need names of specific theories or names at play here

Say a man does something extremely heroic and saves a whole city from catastrophy by single handedly disabling the criminals and defused the bomb. So everybody in the city celebrates and considers him a hero and becomes a national celebrity. Then, the next night he accidently hits a child with his car and this child dies. It was clearly his fault because of negligence or something like that. The courts and the public are undecided how or if they should prosecute this hero. What specific theories or ethics, or whatever are at play here? --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You do know that the RefDesk is not a discussion forum right? You seem to be asking for our opinions. Unless I am wrong and there is more nuance to your question, I don't see that it is anything beyond a moral dilemma. Zunaid 14:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

God, what's with everyone saying that I'm trying to start a f*cking discussion. For all those who took Ethics in school, what specific ethics are taking place. btw thanks for moral dilemma answer despite your scolding. --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Your question "what specific ethics are taking place" is unanswerable. Ethics aren't things that "take place", they're things that exist in the minds of people. This is why you're asking for opinions - who knows what "the courts and the public" might think in any given situation? What is "the public" anyway? Now, if you were to ask a specific legally focused question such as whether there is any precedent for a prosecution being dropped in such a situation, we might start to get somewhere. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

honesty, personhood, utilitarianism, victimless crime: these are examples of moral concepts with an objective existence (if you adhere to moral realism) which could be valid answers to questions on the reference desk like this question. 213.122.5.194 (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am certainly not asking for anyone's opinions. I assumed that there were specfic names of any ethic theories or anything like that, I guess not. When I have this discussion later with my teacher, I will simply tell her that this is a case of "moral dilemma" instead of "_" ethic theory or whatever. Excuse my extreme ignorance on the topic. But still, not cool on the scolding. --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll get scolded less if you take an extra minute before clicking "Save page" and try to be as precise as possible with what, exactly, you are asking for. You've been asking interesting questions but they have been very vague in the particulars, which leads most pedantic Refdesk visitors to scold you for being irritatingly imprecise. Tempshill (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• In most rule of law nations, the two events are totally separate. I recommend you do a google news search for firefighters that have committed various crimes. Turns out the "but he's a hero" defense doesn't go too far in practice. --M@rēino 14:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Such a past might constitute a mitigating factor under law, although the wikipedia article on these only really discusses mental health not prior good character. Aggravation, mitigation, and mercy in English criminal justice by Nigel Walker[16] discusses the effect of meritorious behaviour on sentencing:

Sentencers are sometimes influenced by a principle which seems to be retributive in spirit: that deserts can be reduced by meritorious conduct. [Discusses cases where people make amends for crimes prior to being caught and receive a reduced sentence.] More remarkable are cases in which the court is influenced by meritorious conduct which has nothing to do with the offence or trial. Men have had prison terms reduced or suspended becaus they have fought well in a war, saved a child from drowning or started a youth club (p. 111)

(references supplied in the text) It also mentions a case in 1982 where a man, Reid, had saved 2 children from a burning house and had a sentence of 3 months for burglary commuted to a conditional discharge. The reference to retributive justice is interesting, and may indicate one ethical principle involved. --Lesleyhood (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think in the situation as named there would be much official, ethical leeway. Doing one good thing, and then doing one bad thing—those are going to be regarded as separate events from a legal point of view. If the latter is truly accidental, then it doesn't even matter if they've done the good thing, technically. (Accidents happen, and we have legal systems that make some accommodation for that.) Assessments of whether it was truly accidental, though, might be influenced by perceptions of the honesty and integrity of the fellow in question.

A more problemic situation, though, is what happens when someone who is currently doing something Very Good, also is doing something Somewhat or even Very Bad. This is a common trope in fiction—there is sometimes a question of what serves the greater good prosecuting someone for their crimes, or letting them get away with it and continue their good work. For the relative ethics discussion, see, e.g. utilitarianism. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• sigh of relief* thank you! This is better. Thanks all for your input. I see a lot of legal explanations rather than ethical ones but this will certainly do. thanks again --Reticuli88 (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There are various examples of this sort of thing. To take a recent example from down here, Marcus Einfeld was a highly respected lawyer and later judge. He was held in very high regard by groups such as Jews and indigenous Australians for his advocacy of human rights. He was named an Australian Living Treasure, and was often touted as a future Governor-General. Then he was nabbed for speeding, by a speed camera. He is wealthy, and he should have just paid the the fine and be done with it, even if it did mean he lost his licence for a while. God knows, he could afford taxis. But he claimed the car was being driven by a friend of his. It turned out this friend had died a couple of years earlier (which he knew, because he sent expressions of condolence to her family). Then he claimed it was a different person of the same name as his friend, which was a total fabrication It just went from bad to worse, and he's now in prison, having been stripped of all his official honours and all his standing in the community. In an interview shortly before he went to jail, he said (unbelievably) he didn't think he'd done anything wrong. He's usually referred to now as "disgraced former judge Marcus Einfeld". -- JackofOz (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Moral character might be relevant. The line (in the criticisms section) about "situation specific traits, rather than robust traits" caught my eye. The man in your example nobly saved the life of the child he then later negligently killed. We can judge him for his overall altruism, and his general will to defend the city, which he appears conflicted over, in that he will defend the citizens from bombs but not by being careful with his own car; or we can say that we shouldn't generalize about his character in that way, and should treat the two incidents separately. 213.122.5.194 (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The bible (in Leviticus) command not to give privilege in judgement to honorable or to miserable person. I guess that this could be your starts point-search for articles on ethics that refer to this notion.--Gilisa (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Israel and the swastika

What is the legal status of the swastika in Israel? --88.78.239.248 (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Illegal and could lead one who carry it immediately to detention.--Gilisa (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the conversation here, are there any exemptions for literary/scholarly usage? -- 128.104.112.149 (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Under what law? This Times article of 2007 says "There is no law explicitly banning anti-Semitism in the Jewish state, simply because it was never expected to occur." If you can cite a reliable source then we can add this to the Swastika article, which mentions legal issues in a number of countries, but not Israel. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering the large Palestinian population, why is anti-Semitism so unexpected? --Nricardo (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I can provide a handful of sources for this, but all would be in Hebrew. There were no specific rules against anti Semitism in Israel until lately. However, there are in Israel about 600,000 non Jewish Russians and Ukranians who immigrated to Israel from the former Soviet union after the the iron curtain fall. They immigrated to Israel under the law of return but they mostly have no connection to Judiasm or to Jewish life, they just had the right to immigrate to Israel because they were married to Jewish people or because they are the granchilds of one who was married to Jewish person. Since 2005 several Neo Nazi groups were caught in Israel and the Israeli parliament made rules against anti Semitism. Also, in 2006, a swastika tatoo was found under the armpit of an IDF soldier of Russian origin (only his grandfather is Jewish) -he was detent, his interent connections were checked and it was found that he was active to at the least two years in eastern European neo Nazi forums. Then, on an interview to the Israeli media his mother spoke out against Jewish people, and many parliament members, one hand with police officials, asked whether cacelling the Israeli citizenship of this family and sending them back to their country of origin is possible-however then the laws didn't allow it. Nevertheless, members of neo Nazi groups were charged under the laws against racism. But today there are also specific laws against neo Nazi activity and Nazi symboles.--Gilisa (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating, Gilisa. For future reference, could you provide the name of this soldier? Is there an article on the Hebrew Wikipedia about this case? BrainyBabe (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they released his name. Here is a story about it. There's also this one about a gang of neonazis. TastyCakes (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-Black, Asian, Hispanic ethnic minority American literature

Can anyone name a few books I can read that are written by a member of an ethnic minority who is not Black, Asian, or Hispanic? Any author from anywhere else (Europe, Middle East, India, etc...) would be acceptable. Thank you. -hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 23:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There are thousands of such books, but I will start by naming some of the writers found here on WP, and you can check the articles for titles that might appeal to you: Bharati Mukherjee, born in India; Frank McCourt, born in Ireland; Jerzy Kosinski, born in Poland; Vladimir Nabokov, born in Russia . . . In fact, just type "any nationality-American" in the Search box in the column to the left, and then scroll down the article to the section on Notable "Any nationality-Americans", looking for sections on writers or literature. Bielle (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The criteria I am using are: a writer with a WP article who was born outside the US, but who was a naturalized US citizen at some time in his/her career and, as requested by the OP, was not “Black, Hispanic or Asian”. Here are a few others: Janwillem Lincoln van de Wetering, born in Holland; Deepak Chopra, born in New Delhi; Amitav Ghosh, born in Kolcata; Saul Bellow, born in Canada, of Russian parents; Thomas Mann, born in Germany.

Ayn Rand, from Russia. --Jayron32 01:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And how could I leave out May Sarton of Belgium? Bielle (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Silva is Portuguese American. --Nricardo (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

But note that Germans, Belgians, Russians, etc. aren't ethnic minorities in the USA: they're all whites. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

They may be all "white" (or not), but even if they are, they can still be "ethnic minorities", which relates to ethnic origins outside (in this case) the U.S. and has nothing to do with skin pigment. And to Nricardo's addition of Daniel Silva to the list: I think he was born in the U.S. I was just providing names of writers born outside the U.S. who later became American citizens. Bielle (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The first challenge was figuring out who would qualify as an American ethnic minority, but not Asian, Black or Hispanic. How about Native Americans? “Here First” edited by Arnold Krupat and Brian Swann was the first Google hit (Amazon). “Native American Literature” got 140,000 hits. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Via this search, I find, amongst others, List of German Americans#Authors and writers, List of works by Piers Anthony (who was English), Hugh Wheeler (ditto), Gordon R. Dickson (Canadian).

In non-fiction, there's Richard John Neuhaus (author of books on politics and religion who was Canadian), Wafa Sultan (author of a book on Islam who was Syrian).

And so on.

See also the literature, author or media sections in many of the pages in Category:Lists of American people by ethnic or national origin AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Native Hawaiians includes novelist Kirby Wright. List of Native Americans doesn't seem to have any writers, which can't be right. --Lesleyhood (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Vine Deloria, Jr.. And can somebody please explain to me how someone from India is not Asian? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Louise Erdrich and Sherman Alexie are of Native American descent. Asians to many U.S. English speakers refers to east and southeast Asians. Catrionak (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.42.186 (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

October 30

does everyone hear the days music while going to sleep

as youre going to sleep does the symphony you heard that day play itself to you in your head distinctly - not that i would confuse it with real sounds, i know its in my 'minds ear' - or is it just me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.144.111 (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Listening to a symphony every day is not normal, and suggests you're deeply involved in music, which makes it less peculiar that you should hear music as you drop off to sleep. A musician I know has composed songs in his sleep, which he says is aggravating because he feels obliged to wake up and write them down. 81.131.63.58 (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I hear music all the time. I place it as a side-effect of being a stage actor at a young age. I quickly learned the skill of being to recall anything that I hear for a rather long period of time. To this day, I can listen to people talk and then repeat everything said just by playing it back in my head. Music is the same - except that it sticks with me. I can play back songs in my head very easily, but I cannot stop it. Right now, the theme to the Late Late Show is playing on repeat. -- kainaw™ 01:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not hear music in my head almost ever. Occasionally an odd earworm, but certainly not every night. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

So... Some people have similar traits and others don't. I wonder if we have a template answer for "Some people are like you and some are not. Some people agree with you and others do not. Some people like you and others do not. etc..." -- kainaw™ 02:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you wrote a second sentence, Mr.98. Your first one bamboozled the heck out of me. It almost reminded me of Hans Richter's Up with your damned nonsense will I put twice, or perhaps once, but sometimes always, by God, never.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question. I had a very similar one actually: whether most people can play at will music they heard before in their head or that only those who have a kind of musical talent can do it. --Gilisa (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that when I'm awake but dead tired, I can hear complex music (like a symphony) in my mind's ear much more vividly than when I'm wide awake. It's not music that I heard that day and it's not stuck in my head, it's just ordinary song recall but with higher-fidelity instruments. Is that what you're talking about? -- BenRG (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that as well-and the neurophysiological basis for that was not well studied yet.--Gilisa (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"Listening to a symphony every day is not normal" - speak for yourself, Barbarian! ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz, do you have any idea what is the specific complexity of the music that BenRG hearing in his head?--Gilisa (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean specified complexity? Sorry, that is complex, but unspecified. Also, I don't know what BenRG is hearing. But according to Leonard Bernstein, Beethoven's symphonies have the property that "the next note is the one you would least expect (but that afterwards seems to be the only possible choice)". So we can give a lower estimate of the Shannon information of a Beethoven symphony. Since there are 12 half tones, the least expected one must have a probability of no more than 1/12, which gives us at least 3.58 bits/note. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If I may hijack this thread to take it in a somewhat different direction: I've noticed that in the presence of a rather loud and monotonous noise (when riding in a small boat with an outboard motor, for instance), I often start to "hear" music within the noise—yes, sometimes whole symphonies or other complex pieces. This is more inescapable and "real" than an everyday earworm or imagined song in one's head; it approaches being an actual auditory hallucination. Is there a name for the phenomenon? A neurological explanation? Deor (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Deor: unless the music is so distracting that you're unable to concentrate, I think the formal name for the phenomenon is "good imagination." But if it is causing you trouble, then you might want to have an ear doctor or a psychiatrist check you out for Musical ear syndrome, which I believe can happen if you have too much exposure to ear-damaging noises like outboard motors. --M@rēino 16:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Sweet Trinity

In the ballad The Sweet Trinity why is the body of water referred to as a "lowland sea?" Is this a body of water below sea level? Bus stop (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The lowlands is a region of Virginia. Similarly, lowcountry is a region of South Carolina. -- kainaw™ 02:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, kainaw. What would be referred to, the Atlantic Ocean off of the coast of these states? I am thinking that perhaps it is a poetic and grim reference to drowning, and not to any particular, actual body of water. Bus stop (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The earliest version (Child 286A; see the first external link in our article) seems to use "Neatherlands" and "Low-lands" as synonymous—as indeed they roughly are—so one might assume that in that version the ship was imagined as sailing in the seas off Holland when it had its distressing encounter. What, if anything, was pictured by the singers or composers of various variants of the song, by no means all of which mention a "lowland sea", is perhaps an unanswerable question. John Jacob Niles's comments may be of interest. Deor (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. All very thought provoking. And it got me to this. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Corporate Finance Question

In case of shortage in working capital,as an adviser to the company what factors would you consider in advising whether to sell its assets or use them as collateral to acquire loan to solve shortageSolit (talk) 06:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether the company will have future need of the assets? Whether they are core to the company's business or represent a side-project (e.g. property which is rented without being directly used in the business)? Whether anyone will lend money, and at what sort of rates, and how much they'll lend against the assets? Whether the company is better off reducing in size (due to falling markets, recession, etc) or continuing as before? This is a vague question and would be different for each business. --Lesleyhood (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

16th century units of length in Venice

Hi - finding it strangely difficult to find what the Italian equivalents of feet and inches were in 1580. Can anyone help? Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[17] --151.51.28.42 (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Docetism

As a Christian I am having trouble understanding docetism. Can someone explain this term further in simple English and that of John 1:14?--LordGorval (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

According to mainline Christianity, almost since the very first days, one of the central tenets has been that Jesus Christ was fully human. He had a real body and a real mind and experienced emotion and pain and all the things that a real human does. Docetism states that this is wrong; and that Jesus Christ had no real body, but that interactions people had with him were an illusion. The first chapter of the Gospel of John explains the relationship of Jesus with God and with Man; "The Word" is Jesus Christ, so it says both "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning" (John 1:1-2, NIV) which says that Jesus is God, and has been so since the Beginning (i.e. Genesis and Creation) and John 1:14 establishes the other part of Jesus's character, "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." That is, God became human, and that human is Jesus. Docetism was one of the tenets of Gnosticism, and early version of Christianity that had a lot of complex differences from the version that became "mainline Christianity.", and has for a long time considered heretical. --Jayron32 12:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It might also be relevant here that docetism became a popular variant of Christianity about 30 years before the Gospel of John had been written - and that Biblical inerrancy is a fairly recent concept (heck, the Bible is a recent concept compared to docetism), so early Christians would not perceive the conflict with any of our current books of the Bible much of a problem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary books

Hi : ) I'm really just curious and anyone can interpret this question however they want, but what books written since the 1980s and up do you feel have importance in the literary world? I mean what novels written do you think would provoke meaningful conversations in an English classroom. I've come up with The Things They Carried and American Psycho, which are just two I've discussed in my own classes. Thanks! ?EVAUNIT^{神の人間の殺害者} 14:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

A brief perusing of the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction brings up a lot of great books: The Road, Middlesex, Gilead, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay (one of my personal favorites), Beloved, etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Modern Library 100 Best Novels includes Midnight's Children from 1980 and Ironweed from 1983, and, from the readers' list, the following:

• Battlefield Earth
• Moonheart
• The Hunt for Red October
• Mythago Wood
• Mission Earth
• Mulengro: A Romany Tale
• Ender's Game
• Blood Meridian
• The Handmaid's Tale
• IT
• Yarrow
• Beloved
• The Satanic Verses
• Greenmantle (which, I must confess, I've never heard of)
• A Prayer for Owen Meany
• The Little Country
• Guilty Pleasures
• The Cunning Man
• Memory and Dream
• The Wood Wife
• Suttree
• Trader
• Someplace to be Flying

I noticed a lot of Charles de Lint and L. Ron Hubbard in the readers' selections, as well as quite a lot of science fiction/fantasy/horror, which is not represented in the editors' list. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Besides the Pulitzer, you might like to look at winners of the Man Booker Prize. --ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Not wishing to get all elitist about it, but 'readers choice' is not likely to yield 'important' books, as most people vote for the books they like, whatever the supposed criteria of the choice is. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

color or non-standard black peoples marry whites

For Asian i notice ther is two types stnadad asian and white marry and US BOrn Asians and whites for US Born Asian man to marry white women actually accounts 40% What about for color not fully standard black to marry white, would it be higher for black women to marry white man? Becasue data show for black man to marry white is 71% for standad blacks then what about for non-standard black women to marry a white man. Could it be up to 40%?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's article Interracial marriage in the United States may have the statistics that you're looking for. Two things worth pointing out: (1) Even in the United States, same-race marriages are still more common than mixed-race marriages, but the numbers are changing quickly in recent years. (2) Americans don't refer to any people or racial groupings as "standard" -- I think the word you want might be "common" or "prevalent". The word "standard" is misleading because it suggests some sort of official approval. --M@rēino 16:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Art print wanted

Why can't I find a print of That Which I Should Have Done I Did Not Do by Ivan Albright anywhere? Mike R (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you want a print, for sale, or just an image? The image is at http://www.tfaoi.com/newsmu/nmus40a.htm. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Did Marx show high regard for India's past?

Marx's contempt for India is rather famous. "I share not the opinion of those who believe in a golden age of Hindostan...". However, I read in a book a quote attributed to Marx which basically says that "We Europeans owe our language and religion to India". The writer doesn't specify the sourced work. Did Marx anywhere in his works express high regard thus for India's past? --Advaidavaark (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)