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

December 15

Yazoo City Mayors

How long has Wardell Leach been Mayor of Yazoo City? When did McArthur Straughter take office?24.90.204.234 (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You could call him and find out. here is a list of contact information for Yazoo City. --Jayron32 04:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Movement of the sun and moon around the sky

So, in the Northern hemisphere, the sun rises in the east, moves in a clockwise direction through the sky (and is at its midday peak in the south) and sets in the west. The moon does the same. Am I right so far? So what happens in the southern hemisphere? Does the sun still rise in the east? Is it at the north at midday? Does it go in an anti/counter-clockwise direction to set in the west (if it sets in the west?)? And what happens on the equator?

In the Northern hemisphere, stars move around the Pole Star - but what direction do they circle in - clockwise or anti/counter-clockwise?

Thank you for helping.81.159.89.69 (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I should explain my reeason for asking. I have seen lots of programmes on TV where the sun rises on the bottom right corner of the screen and moves anti/counter-clockwise towards the top left side of the screen. I am unsure whether this is simply the result of lazy journalism/film production and is a film of a sunset that has been played backwards, hence its reversed movement, or whether this actually happens in the southern hemisphere.81.159.89.69 (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is really a science question, but you asked here, so I'll answer here. Point by point:

• So, in the Northern hemisphere, the sun rises in the east, moves in a clockwise direction through the sky (and is at its midday peak in the south) and sets in the west. The moon does the same. Am I right so far?

Yes, in the mid-latitudes. More precisely, if you consider only the horizontal direction from you to the sun, that moves clockwise as you look down onto the earth -- i.e. south to west. North of the Arctic Circle you get a period each year when the sun never rises and another period when it never sets, just rotates clockwise all the way around the sky (highest in the south, lowest in the north). For the tropics, see below.

• So what happens in the southern hemisphere? Does the sun still rise in the east? Is it at the north at midday? Does it go in an anti/counter-clockwise direction to set in the west (if it sets in the west?)?

Yes, in the mid-latitudes. Again, south of the Antarctic Circle there are periods when it never sets (moving anticlockwise all the way around the sky) or never rises.

• And what happens on the equator?

In this answer I'll use "spring" to mean the period from the spring equinox to the summer solstice, and similarly for other seasons; this is standard in some countries but not in others. For half the year (Southern Hemisphere spring and summer), on the equator the sun moves clockwise and its high point is in the south; the other half (Northern Hemisphere spring and summer), it moves anticlockwise and its high point is in the north. This doesn't mean it switches abruptly from one motion to another. On the equinox it moves straight overhead from east to west. The next day it moves just a little bit north or south, then the next day a bit further, and so on until on the solstice it reaches farthest north or south (but still high overhead, not nearly as far south or north as you get in the mid-latitudes). Then it starts coming back until on the next equinox it is passing straight overhead again.

This variation between clockwise and anticlockwise is true anywhere in the tropics, but off the equator it's asymmetrical. For example, at latitude 20° north, for most of the year the sun will move clockwise with its highest point in the south, but there will be a small part of the year when it goes the other way (almost straight overhead, but with its highest point in the north).

• In the Northern hemisphere, stars move around the Pole Star - but what direction do they circle in - clockwise or anti/counter-clockwise?

The whole sky rotates as a unit, but when you look up at the stars circling the pole, you are viewing the rotation from the opposite direction compared to what I described when I said "more precisely". Therefore, looking up toward the Pole Star, it now looks like an anticlockwise rotation.

• I have seen lots of programmes on TV where the sun rises on the bottom right corner of the screen and moves anti/counter-clockwise towards the top left side of the screen.

That can't happen in the Northern Hemisphere outside of the tropics, and in the tropics it would rise at an angle close to vertical. You may indeed be seeing a sunset played backwards, or a Southern Hemisphere sunrise; another, less likely, possibility is that the image has been reversed left-right for some artistic reason.

--Anonymous, 12:20 UTC, December 15, 2009.

Thanks. You covered everything! I did ask on the science ref desk first, but then noticed that they seem to take an age to answer and that there was a question about the noth pole here.....:)81.159.89.69 (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You got your first answer on the Science desk less than 2 hours after posting your question. Posting the same question on multiple boards, and then insulting the people who answer (smiley or no), is probably not the best way to get quality answers in the future. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The only difference to the Moon here in the Southern Hemisphere, is the way the markings on it look. If I recall, here it looks like two fingers pointing down, and when I see Northern Hemeisphere movies, the markings on the moon are the other way round, since we are upside down here, so we are viewing the moon from a different angle. In New Zealand, the Sun is always to the North, since the farthest south it can possibly right overhead is at the Tropic of Capricorn at about 23.5 degrees south, I think. The only town I know on that line is Rockhampton, the furthest south the sun gets, in Queensland. Even then, it still gets hot over there - as if it isn't hot enough here at times.C.B.Lilly 12:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

Literature question

I am looking for the well-reviewed play where a travel decision by the central character went awry, and he ended up over 5,000 miles off course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.54.201 (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Odyssey? --Jayron32 18:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really a play, but in the movie "Amistad", the African rebels ended up in the US instead of their intended destination of Africa. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrong-Way Corrigan, perhaps?Rhinoracer (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's not a play either. Incidentally, Corrigan was not the first person to be nicknamed Wrong-Way; see also Roy Riegels.

Christopher Columbus famously failed to reach Asia by thousands of miles, and according to Wikipedia, he was the subject of a play by Dario Fo. --Anonymous, 22:08 UTC, December 17, 2009.

However, he went in exactly the direction he intended; he just learned that there was something between Europe and Asia. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's still an incorrect "travel decision", isn't it? --Anonymous, 06:37 UTC, December 18, 2009.

Success

What do you think about Success is based more on image than talent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.56.73.112 (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting per the rubric at the top of the page that we do not really do opinion questions, nor do we encourage starting debates. And in other news, to cover a probably base, we do not do your homework for you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Islam religion in Arabia?

Hello. I've been wondering for quite some time about the religious manners of the Arabs before Islam was foundedin the 600's. Were they Judaist, Christian, or followers of a religion native to their culture? 88.112.62.154 (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic Arabia may be of use, as might Ancient Semitic religion. It seems to be a complicated question, with each little area doing their own thing, so some of the links in the first article to individual kingdoms might be most useful if you've got a specific area or time in mind. Matt Deres (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And Arabian mythology, and the chief goddess of Mecca, Allāt. I thought jahiliyya might be helpful, but that article stinks... Adam Bishop (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Specifically in Muhammad's area, there were reportedly a large number of idols in the Ka`ba enclosure at Mecca, of which the three best-remembered now are Allāt, Al-‘Uzzá, and Manāt (because of the Satanic verses controversy). The most specifically relevant article seems to be Arabian mythology (though it it perhaps somewhat conflates pre-Islamic pagan concepts with later folklore). AnonMoos (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Arabia had great religious diversity before the rise of Islam. Some people practiced traditional Semitic cults involving the worship of various named gods (one of whom was called Allah). Others were Christians or Jews, and there were probably also some Zoroastrians. Marco polo (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answers everyone. 87.108.22.140 (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind the definition of Arabia. Before becoming "Arabized" the Ancient Egyptians had the (I presumed to be) the monotheistic Aten. Here is the article about him in the Arab Wikipedia.Civic Cat (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Georgia's Death Row

American serial killer Carlton Gary is set to be executed by lethal injection on Wednesday. He was convicted in 1986, my question is, is the average of stay on death row in Georgia more than 20 years?, or is it a special case?. --SouthAmerican (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Page 69 of this document gives this data on the Georgia death row inmates:

Count Pct      Years Served
2     1.92%    Less than one year
1     0.96%     3 to 3.99 years
1     0.96%     4 to 4.99 years
1     0.96%     5 to 5.99 years
2     1.92%     6 to 6.99 years
5     4.81%     7 to 7.99 years
3     2.88%     8 to 8.99 years
4     3.85%     9 to 9.99 years
5     4.81%    10 to 10.99 years
7     6.73%    11 to 11.99 years
4     3.85%    12 to 12.99 years
7     6.73%    13 to 13.99 years
9     8.65%    14 to 14.99 years
6     5.77%    15 to 15.99 years
5     4.81%    16 to 16.99 years
6     5.77%    17 to 17.99 years
3     2.88%    18 to 18.99 years
9     8.65%    19 to 19.99 years
3     2.88%    20 to 20.99 years
3     2.88%    21 to 21.99 years
2     1.92%    22 to 22.99 years
4     3.85%    23 to 23.99 years
2     1.92%    24 to 24.99 years
1     0.96%    25 to 25.99 years
1     0.96%    27 to 27.99 years
1     0.96%    28 to 28.99 years
1     0.96%    29 to 29.99 years
6     5.77%    Thirty + years

Mean (average)          16.05 years
Median (middle)         15.085 years
Mode (most frequent)    7 to 7.99 years

--Sean 18:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The mode looks like 14 to 14.99 years to me... And was there nobody executed in between 1 and 3 years? --Tango (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, 14 to 14.99 and 19 to 19.99. --Tango (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I just cut and pasted from the Department of Corrections document. Presumably your complaint should be directed to the Georgia Department of Education. :) --Sean 21:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Sean, the Department of Education is only concerned with the education. It's the Department of Corrections that makes the corrections :) --Dr Dima (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yellow flag. This is a table of the number of years that current prisoners who are presently on Death Row have been incarcerated. All of these people are still alive (or were as of the report). It is not the number of years that inmates have spent on Death Row before their execution. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the trouble with the way the Death Penalty is practised in the United States As it is written : " Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. " Ecclesiastes 8:11. So, other than the terrible prospect of convicting and executing an innocent person, because these people are sitting round waiting not to die, others are more encouraged to commit murder because they see this as an example, and think that they may not even have to pay for their crimes. If these people are guitly, get it over with. If not, set them free. This is why people don't like lawyers. They tie up in court something that should have been over and done with ages ago. If killers are not merciful to us, why should we show them any mercy ? But if we have the death penalthy, we should not be afraid to use it. And because it is irreversable, all the more reason to get it right. If you read my question on the Grave with the Bloody Hand, you may see that back when NZ had hanging, we got it over with quickly. In the case in question, Mr. Cedeno murdered Miss Burke on January 10th, 1871, was tried in March, and executed on April 5. Under 3 months. I have looked at other such cases over fifty years old ( NZ's last execution was in 1957 ), and this seems to be the case. I mean, if the Jury is happy with the evidence, why wait ? What, is there a line to the death room ? Doubt it. Seems in most states they are all waiting round while no one is getting executed, because a lawyer can't bill a dead client. What is the point of having a Death Row ? What, so someone can name a record label after it ? There is no need. It is not as if there are fifty capital cases on the same day. Here we let a man go free after about 13 years from his first murder, and he went on a killing spree. He is still causing trouble in prison, even after Armed Police shot off one of his legs. Another man, who strangled a teenage prisoner in a prison van, went and publicly took a hostage at his Msximum Security Prison. The boy's family have to live through that all over again. There's no closure. We would all save a fortune not having to feed them and such, if we did the right thing. The Bible does say the Law ( Jewish and Civil ) was made not for the righteous but sinners, because good people do not need laws to tell them not to kill. Not that it stops some who do, but if we had the Death Penalty back, which we threw away nearly 50 years ago, we might discourage some. C.B.Lilly 13:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

Well while I do not disagree with most of what you are saying, the US is not a theocracy and the Bible does not play a direct role in our judicial process. Also your statement about lawyers keeping the guy alive so that he can pay them is quite absurd. What do you think the average earnings are for a death row inmate? Most of the lawyers for those guys are working for free because they do not believe in the death penalty. Googlemeister (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I stand corrected on that. Over here in New Zealand we had a big stink about lawyers just having been exposed milking the system for legal aid, as if it hasn't been happening for decades. Naturally if the client was rich . . . But what, because they don't believe in the death penalty ? Fine, yours is as free a country as mine, but what gives them the right to impose their beliefs on the system if Capital Punishment is the law ? Although, what really gets me, is when a foreign country will not return to the US a murderer if he is to be executed, forcing the DA to drop the death penalty, just because the murderer was clever enough to hop on a plane. France did it with Ira Einhorn, and I believe Canada has done so, too. Imagine the stink if the US tried to tell those countries which of their laws they could enforce. I am ashamed to say that NZ would probably do the same thing, even though the US was good enough to give us back the Chinese gentleman who killed his wife in Auckland and left his daughter in Melbourne Airport. Yes, it is not a Theocracy. (Not much of one any more, that is), but do you not still say In God We Trust ? Of course, I do not believe in having a religious government, that forces its beliefs on people like they do in Saudi Arabia, but if I were running things here, I would still make laws of a Biblical nature. Why not? Others in control over the past years in many countries seem to like making anti God laws, so it should work both ways. I do feel for families of men about to be executed, but overall I can never forget the victims. They are who it should be for. The Russian.C.B.Lilly 15:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Christmas movies during WWII

I can name several movies that are shown on TV over and over again during the Christmas season, but I was wondering if there were any Christmas classics made before or during World War II. I can't seem to think of any that old and I'm writing a story that takes place during the war. Thanks! ?EVAUNIT^{神の人間の殺害者} 18:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• List of A Christmas Carol adaptations gives a number of movie adaptations from before WWII. It's a Wonderful Life was released only a year after WWII. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Christmas films has a number made during or before 1945. Babes in Toyland (1934 film) is probably the most famous. --Sean 18:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The most famous made during the war is perhaps Holiday Inn (1942) which featured the song "White Christmas."--Cam (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The first was probably Vie et Passion du Christ (1903), followed by From the Manger to the Cross (1912). Other pre-WWII Christmas films include The King of Kings (1927), 'The Sign of the Cross (1932) and Babes in Toyland (1934). DOR (HK) (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few I found doing an imdb search:

Twas the Night Before Christmas (1914)

A Christmas Accident (1912)

A Christmas Fantasy (1918)

A Christmas Revenge (1915)

A Hard Luck Santa Claus 91920)

A Holiday Pageant at Home (1901)

A Little Girl Who Did Not Believe in Santa Claus (1907)

A Trap for Santa Claus (1909)

Alias St. Nick (1935)

An Unexpected Santa Claus (1908)

Christmas Comes But Once a Year (1936)

Christmas Eve (1897)

Christmas Morning (1897)

Compliments of the Season (1930)

Holiday Land (1934) (this one covers several holidays, including Christmas)

Hooligan's Christmas Dream (1903)

Le Noël du poilu (1915)

Le rêve de Noël (1900)

Loews Christmas Greeting (The Hardy Family) (1939)

Making Christmas Crackers. 91910)

Night Before Christmas (1897)

Peace on Earth (1939) an anti-war cartoon

Santa Claus (1898)

Santa Claus (1925)

Santa Claus Filling Stockings (1897)

Santa Claus vs. Cupid (1915)

Santa's Workshop (1932)

Seasin's Greetinks! (1933) a Popeye cartoon

The Adventure of the Wrong Santa Claus 91914)

The Captain's Christmas (1938)

The Christmas Burglars (1908)

The Christmas Party (1931)

The Christmas Tree Party (1897)

The Jew's Christmas (1913) (no comment)

The Night Before Christmas (1905)

The Night Before Christmas (1933)

The Pups' Christmas (1936)

The Shanty Where Santy Claus Lives (1933)

Their Christmas Turkey (1912)

Un conte de Noël (1902)

Under the Mistletoe (1903)

Visit of St. Nicholas (1897)

There are also a lot of movies that came up in my search whose titles did not automatically reveal themselves as Christmas movies. In additiion, the various versions of A Christmas Carol and Little Women are obviously Christmas movies. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I found 2 made DURING the war and not on the list...Beyond Christmas (1940)[1] and Christmas Under Fire (1941) [2]. Alansplodge (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has yet mentioned Remember the Night, I will. —Kevin Myers 07:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Constitutional rights + same-sex marriage (not a math equation :)

Constitutional rights (CR) are those rights bestowed upon the people by the government (via its constitution) such that infringement upon said rights, whatever they may be, constitutes contradiction and is therefor illegal, at least until the constitution is changed -- that's how I understand CRs in summary format. For those intelligent persons who assert that same-sex marriage is a US CR, what exactly is the argument. That person X (who is male) is allowed to "marry whom he loves" (who happens to be female) but that person Y (also male) is prohibited from the same (but, in Y's case, the person whom he loves is also male)? That seems to me to be a valid equality issue, if such a "marry whom one loves" clause is itself a valid clause. I'm not here to debate the issue, just to understand what the two sides say. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You want to muddy it further, you could also consider polygamy and polyandry as those contain the similar "marry whom he/she loves" argument, and is also illegal. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Your premise that constitutional rights are " bestowed upon the people by the government" is incorrect. The principle is that those rights are natural rights that, as the Declaration of Independence says, with which people are "endowed by their Creator". The Constitution, and its amendments, merely clarifies and codifies those rights. That may seem like nitpicking, but it goes to the philosophical underpinning both of the US law and constitution, and higher courts (particularly the supreme courts of the US and individual states) will draw upon the principles of due process and natural justice when clarifying a legal situation. That is, you can have rights that exist a priori, that no-one knew you had, but that can be deduced from the underlying moral principle. Legal arguments as to the current constitutionality of gay marriage revolve in part around natural justice and the Equal Protection Clause, namely that those who wish to engage in a gay marriage are denied protections and benefits in law that are available to others. It has been argued that marriage itself (as a legal entity) is unconstitutional, because it affords additional protections and benefits to persons depending on their marital status. 87.113.46.161 (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This thorough review of a book outlining the Constitutional case for gay marriage gives a good précis of various lines of reasoning. --Sean 21:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I am neither for or against polygamy, but an argument might be made that if marriage laws enable the marriage of two individuals of opposite sex, the "equal protection" clause requires the enabling of marriages between two individuals of the same sex. Since no one is currently allowed to marry multiple individuals, would-be polygamists don't face a lack of "equal protection". (I would also suggest that marriage laws don't typically make any reference to love and that people may conclude marriages for reasons other than love, so "whom one loves" is probably not the legal rationale for marriage.) Marco polo (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The question is who has the right to determine what marriage actually is. As one commentator said, if you open the door all the way, someone could marry a duck if they wanted to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ducks can't give informed consent. Nor can any other red herrings. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get that comparison from thin air; that was something O'Reilly came up with during the same-sex marriage debate a few years ago. Hot air, maybe, but not thin air. And 13 year olds can't realistically give informed consent either, yet some states allow it, or used to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the question was what is the constitutional argument in favor of same-sex marriage, not who has the right to determine the nature of marriage. Marco polo (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is that the constitution does not discuss marriage. I don't think it even acknowledges the concept. So the answer would have to be within U.S. Supreme court cases (if any) in which the subject has been brought up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You're describing what would be necessary for something to actually be the law of the land (either because it's explicitly in the Constitution, or because of USSC precedent). Opie just wants to know what the legal theory is behind a Constitutional argument for same-sex marriage. --Sean 21:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, I disagree. Saying "the Constitution does not discuss marriage" is technically, narrowly correct; but the US Constitution does "discuss" equality and equal protection of the laws, which encompasses lawful marriage; so in the broader sense, it does discuss marriage, as well as, probably, most human activity. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The traditional constitutional answer is that the definition of marriage was almost entirely a matter for the individual states (with very little active role for the federal government), but that each state was required to recognize marriages established in other states by the "full faith and credit" clause. Over the last decade or so, some on the left have postulated rights which were never recognized previously, while some on the right have tried to sabotage or somehow convolutedly evade the consequences of the "full faith and credit" clause... AnonMoos (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is why the question of what is legally to be considered "marriage" is such an important issue. If the Supreme Court decides that marriage is between one man and one woman, then the equal protection argument is gone, and possibly the full faith and credit argument also. There may be plenty of stuff out there about constitutional "theory", but what really matters is the collective mindset of the Supreme Court. That's why, for liberal thinkers, it was vital to get the GOP out of the White House before they did any more damage. Regardless of alleged "strict construction", cases about full-faith-and-credit and equal-protection will ultimately come down to the personal views of the 9 justices. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It is also why the government shouldn't be involved at all. If you believe that marriage is a religiously binding commitment, then how the state defines marriage is irrelevant. If, on the other hand, you believe that marriage is merely a civil contract, then it is governed by the body of contract law. The problem we have now arises because the government treats people who enter into this contract differently than it treats others (e.g., passing on of assets, medical authority, etc.). Wikiant (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Marriage has two aspects: spiritual and legal. There is almost nothing stopping anyone from marrying anyone in the spiritual sense. The law doesn't care about that, unless it involves some illegal act, such as child molesting. The law does care about the legal aspect, and there's no question that it's based on assumptions from centuries ago, but it is what it is. Changes are happening slowly, but it will take court cases and legislation to bring it about fully. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying non-spiritual people cannot marry? My view is that spiritual people are trying to define marriage so that it closely relates to their own version of what is right and proper, and force non-spiritual people to accept that definition if they want to marry. Not good enough. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm saying you can find someone to declare you married, without there being any legal significance. You can even declare yourselves married. Maybe "conceptual" would be a better term than "spiritual". It just might or might not have any legal standing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a large part of the problem. The term "marriage" (at least within the Roman Catholic Church) refers to the sacrament (and has for many centuries). From the Church's perspective, civil authorities have usurped the term. What would advance the debate significantly is new nomenclature. People have tried "civil union" but others have bridled at that claiming that the term is an attempt to demean "marriage" when performed outside a church. That's partially true, the term is not meant to demean, but it is meant to *distinguish*. Wikiant (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Churches and other groups decide for themselves what constitutes a "spiritual" marriage. The public at large, via the legislative process supplemented with court rulings, decides what constitutes "legal" marriage, i.e. what benefits (if any - such as tax deductions) are conferred upon those who are married (substitute "civil union" for "marriage" if you want). The debate is over the legal side of it, and it's really just beginning. The makeup of the Supreme Court will be vital in where the debate ends up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The US Supreme Court has not yet ruled on same-sex marriage, as far as I am aware. This means that there has as yet been no ruling as to whether the US Constitution allows it or not. California's Proposition 8 was specifically worded in order to amend the state Constitution, because same-sex marriage had been declared legal by the state Supreme Court, which had ruled that laws which outlawed same-sex marriage were unconstitutional under the state Constitution. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The question is not if the constitution allows it. The question is if the constitution requires it - or, more precisely, if the constitution requires it when traditional marriage exists and grants certain rights and benefits not available to unmarried couples. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

And, as I keep saying, until the high court rules on a case or some cases, we don't know the answer. It's a little like the guy who slides into third base on a close play; the umpire doesn't call it immediately, and the players and coaches are jumping up and down screaming, "Is he safe or out?" and the ump answers, "He ain't nothin' until I call it!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There is also the difference between The Constitution (as a document) and the constitution (as a concept). Ultimately, the constitution (concept) is the defining ideals of the government. It establishes the right of the government to govern, and the powers of that government, and the limits placed on that government. For example, the United Kingdom has a constitution (concept) but does not have a Constitution (document). Ideally, The Constitution (document) should reflect the constitution (concept) as closely as possible.

The idea that The Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land" misses the point when people use that idea to place statutes into the document. The document is not supposed to contain statutes. There is a long-standing tradition in the United State which describes Statutory law (laws telling people what they can or cannot do) as distinct from constitutional law (laws telling the government what it can ot cannot do). Big difference. The problem arises when people try to put statutes in the Constitution. The only actual statute in the U.S. constitution was the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was thankfully repealed a few years later.

The confusion comes from the fact that the United States has a concept known as Judicial review (see Marbury v. Madison), which states that the courts may rule as unconstitutional any statute passed by the government which is beyond its powers to do so. The thing is, placing a statute into The Constitution (document) is seen as a means by which a legislature may bypass judicial review by saying "See, that law can't be unconstitutional because we put it in The Constitution". Which, of course, misses the point entirely. What the court is saying in many cases is not that the law is unConstitutional (document), its that it is unconstitutional (concept). That is, it is against the founding principles of the government to enact such a law, and altering The Document is unlikely to change that. The constitution (concept) of the United States contains LOTS of things which are not part of The Constitution (document), for example the right to privacy, or even the concept of Judicial Review, which is certainly no where in the Document, but is most definately part of the governing concept of the United States. --Jayron32 17:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason to why homosexual marriages has been banned is because of the opinion to why marriage should excist: the role of marriage. In the old days, marriage was not ment to be a union of love. It was ment to be a organized breeding institution in society. Nowadays, the weiv upon marriage has changed. People no longer marry for breeding; they marry for love, which is actually something quite reasent in the history of humanity. Thereby also come the thought of allowing people to marry for love. So, really, this is a question upon the wiev of marriage, the role of marriage: should marriage be a a breeding-institution, or should it be a union of love? In Sweden, same sex marriage are now allowed : the argument to allow it was, (for example), that if one should only be allowed ot marry someone with whom one could breed children, then it should also be forbiden to marry sterile people, old people, women who stopped menstruating, etc - and the side who wanted to stop the reform had no real arguments. It was merely discrimination, and in the future, this question will be looked upon the same way as the racial segreagation. --85.226.44.238 (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

December 16

Naughty James Gillray prints

I read in the news that some of the more risqué cartoons from the incomparable 18th century illustrator James Gillray have recently been unearthed. Is there anywhere I can see some of these newly discovered prints online?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't get much more racy than this

No, only in line at the V&A next year. Yomangani^talk 01:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of formatting the image, Yomangani. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yo yo yo! nice to hear from you, Yo-MG; I thought you retired or something. Are you quite sure about this? V&A's website doesn't list an upcoming Gillray exhibit....--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm just in hibernation, I occasionally poke my nose out to see if it is spring yet. I don't think the V&A have had time to update the website yet, but Stephen Calloway, the curator of prints, said that they would be putting it on display next year. It seems like some of "rediscovered" prints were already in circulation: Fashionable Contrasts is in there, as is Ci-devant Occupations (NSFW if you are in the 18th century), but this is the first complete copy of the "Suppressed Prints" to emerge. Yomangani^talk 12:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Digital theft

In many debates about online "theft", some people note that the definition of theft implies that one person gains possession of an item by depriving possession from another person. Now, because of the ability to copy files, theft often means gaining possession without necessarily depriving possession from the original owner. Is there a term for that specific type of "theft" that existed before the current concept of copyright theft? -- kainaw™ 01:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright has been around for 300 years (see History of copyright law), so it far pre-dates the digital age. Copying doesn't just refer to digital copying. Hundreds of years ago scribes would spend their lives copying things out by hand. --Tango (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

They are arguably wrong to not such a definition. The OED gives theft as "The action of a thief; the felonious taking away of the personal goods of another". That first clause - the "action of a thief", necessitates a definition of the thief "One who takes portable property from another without the knowledge or consent of the latter, converting it to his own use; one who steals". So in the case of electronic copies, there is a taking of intangible properties - for instance copyright or patent rights - which have notional cash values. I think the straight answer to your question is no; so for instance, copyright theft has been going on for as long as copyright has been a concept, and is known by that term, or as plagiarism, or another like term. I guess before 1710, terms such as copying, theft and perhaps plagiarism were used. Patents have a longer pedigree, but theft of patented intellectual property was also, I think, known as a breach of a patent, or theft; but no more detailed term. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If I create something, I have the basic right to its full value. If you obtain or provide to others my thing I created, I cannot collect value from it. Thus, you have deprived me of its value. So, I record a song. You copy the song and make it availible for others to get free. They don't buy my song, which they otherwise would have. Thus, I am deprived of that value that my song has. I had the value, you deprived me of it. Therefore, theft. --Jayron32 02:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Copying the song and letting others copy it are two different things. I'm only referring to theft, not distribution. I'm trying to find a way to refer to digital theft such that there is no way to argue "if you still have it, I didn't steal it." I'd like a word "foo" so I can refer to digital foo instead of digital theft. -- kainaw™ 03:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If I open a shoe shop, and you open a competing shoe shop next door, I cannot sell so many shoes. Therefore, you have deprived me of some of the value of my shoe shop. I had the value, you deprived me of it. Therefore, theft. Felis cheshiri (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the traditional concept of larceny, which is legally defined, versus "theft", which is a more fluid concept, even though the core of it is larceny. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)That would be 'unauthorized reproduction', or 'copyright violation'. The words 'theft' and 'piracy' are often used, even though there isn't a physical removal of property, by applying a less strict definition. It's just a form of rhetoric. —Akrabbim^talk 03:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really rhetoric. Theft, as a term, can mean taking something which is not yours, even for intangible concepts or for non-material goods. For example, the legal concept of Theft of services is well established. If I take a cab ride across the city, then jump out and run away, I have stolen the "service" of the cab ride, even though at the end I have nothing extra in my pockets after the cab ride is over. Theft just means that you take something you don't have the right to take, regardless of what that is. --Jayron32 03:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the definition of "taking something". As for the taxi ride, you have taken his time and gas away from him, so the driver actually experiences real damage. Applying the same term to making an unauthorized copy is less straightforward. —Akrabbim^talk 04:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Does not a recording artist take time and money to create a recording? Would not copying it deprive them of their rightful compensation for that time and money in exactly the same way as the ditched cab ride? --Jayron32 04:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? The recording artist is not affected whatsoever, whereas the cab driver is now in a different part of the city, later in the day, and with less gas in his gas tank. (Note: I'm not claiming the artist should not be paid or that piracy is OK; just asserting that the artist is not affected whatsoever by the act of copying it.) Tempshill (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The cab driver is irrelevent to the analogy. Pick a different service you don't pay for, where the person stays put. Let's say instead of a cab driver, you visit a therapist, and then after your first appointment, you never pay and skip town. You still stole his services, and he's still sitting in his office and out nothing except the hour he spent with you. Try to convince a judge you didn't steal anything there. Same thing here. Someone spent time doing something for which they are due recompensation. You recieved the products of their efforts, and did not remunerate them. Therefore, it is theft. The particulars are inconsequential here. --Jayron32 05:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

But that's part of the problem. This analogy is still not the same as most copyright violations because the person spent time they would not have spent on you if you hadn't given the impression that you would pay them. If I ask someone to write a short song for me and they spend an hour doing it and then I never pay them, then you would have a good analogy to the therapist thing. But that's not the way most copyright violations work, the person makes the product (spends their time etc) with the hope that people will buy it. There's no pre-existing agreement between the two parties. The person who uses the product without the permission of the copyright owner usually has no initial effect on the decision to make the product. It would still have been made anyway regardless of whether the person used the product without permission or didn't use the product at all. And perhaps the key point, if a person either doesn't use the product or uses it but doesn't pay, there's no real difference to the person who made the product. On the other hand there's usually a difference to the therapist between whether someone didn't visit them or did visit them but didn't pay. Remember certain things are not even eligble for copyright. For example if you spend many hours and lots of money accurately reproducing a public domain artwork, this is not eligible for copyright in the US (and the WMF have decided that's all we care about) and you'd have no luck convincing a judge in the US you should receive renumeration from anyone you didn't have an agreement with no matter how much time you spent on it. (On the other hand, any party which had an agreement for the products to be reproduced for them will likely have to pay unless perhaps they were mislead or something.) However this doesn't really apply to services, no matter whether your work is creative or not provided you have an agreement (written, verbal or implied) for payment and you provide the services up to the standard that can be expected from the agreement and you aren't breaking any laws, then you are entitled to payment.

When it comes to software, there is of course usually some cost to the producer from copyright violations, for example, some people may seek support thorough a variety of means which ends up affecting the producer. (There is also the cost the producer pays to try and stop people copying the product but that's a bit more iffy.) Just to be clear, I'm not saying that copyright violations are okay or even that they're necessarily a lesser crime but the analogy is IMHO clearly somewhat flawed since the way most copyright violations doesn't really have any perfect analogy there are always a number of key differences. Remember there are also likely copyright violations even when there is no expectation of compensation. For example, while some FLOSS developers are willing to license their work under a proprietary basis, others are not. If someone uses say GPL license code (it has happened quite a few times) and does not release it under the GPL, perhaps does not even acknowledge it was used, the copyright holder is likely entitlted to sue and demand this stops. In some cases they may be able to expect some financial compensation due to the violation but they may have never themselves expected any compensation and their only expectaion may be anyone who wants to use it obeys the license. If a party tries to negotiate with them, they will refuse. Is this 'less wrong' then a typical violation? Is it less 'theft' even though there's no expectation of (financial) compensation/renumeration? Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Two points: a) That someone did not have a specific person in mind does not mean that they did not have the right to expect someone to pay for it. By providing music in a tangible form, people are providing a service for others to purchase. If I take that music without paying for it, I have stolen it. b) That someone has voluntarily given up their rights to expect compensation for their services does not mean that the rights did not exist in the first place. The rights were relinquished, but had they not first done so, then the taking of that would be stealing. I have the right to give my possessions to perfect strangers for free. It doesn't mean that all property can be taken from anyone. I have the right to provide pro bono services. It doesn't mean that others are not within their rights to expect payments for their services. And I have the right to offer intellectual property under a copyleft license or put it in the public domain. It doesn't mean that if someone else has some bit of intellectual property, they don't own rights over their music/writing/whatever. --Jayron32 15:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You have changed the subject. The point you are avoiding acknowledging is that if I make a copy of a song at home, this act does not affect the artist at all, so your analogy with cab drivers is way off. I am not disagreeing with most of what you are saying, by the way. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Cab driver is a bad analogy, this is more like sneaking into a 1/2 full music concert without a ticket. Googlemeister (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If I create something, I have the basic right to its full value. - I take objection to that. There is an implicit assumption that you create it completely, out of nothing. But your intellectual creations always depend on cultural inheritance and background. If you claim "the full value" of your song, then, by the golden rule, you also need to compensate the creators of tonal music, of the English language, and even of language, all the way back to Ugh, who had the idea that "Ugh" signals consent, while "Ugh-ugh" implies dissent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The law sees it otherwise, obviously. Patents and copyrights involve taking basic elements such as words and notes, and creating something new. That's the key issue - the whole is a newly-created thing. The U.S. Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to pass laws protecting the rights of authors and inventors for a period of time. No small part of that is the incentive to create. If there were no patent or copyright laws, i.e. no right to benefit from having invented something, why would people bother to invent things? There would be no incentive, and no progress. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, its for "a limited time", and for exactly my reason. You take from the commons, you create, you get the right for some of the value of your creation, but eventually it too enters the public domain. The claim that you have the right to "the full value" has, as far as I'm concerned, neither moral nor legal justification. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for a limited time, not forever. But not for just 30 seconds, either. Typically for some number of years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The debate is not, usually, whether there should be IP protections at all but whether the IP protections in their current form suppress innovation more than they encourage it. There is a strong argument to be made that in the US in particular, the copyright and patent procedures have both been "captured" by the interests of major content producers in a way to ensure their status quo, rather than encouraging the production of new content. The clear example is the work that Disney has been doing to extend copyright protections again and again so that Steamboat Willie doesn't fall into the public domain (even though it, itself, is obviously a derivative work). The question of "how long is the right amount" is a hot one amongst legal theorists, economists, etc. Extending it endlessly, again and again, because one company (or even a number of them) are potentially going to lose money on characters that were created in the late 1920s, is probably not the best way to stimulate new innovation, though. (And Bugs, if you'd like to actually get informed on an issue that you're going to come in and take a stance on... I'd be happy to recommend some interesting literature about it! Lessig's Free Culture is a great copyright primer.) --Mr.98 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Too much protection is an issue. But I'm seeing arguments here that there should be no protection at all, and that would be unfair to the author, inventor, artist, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

They have actually been calling this "piracy" for a long, long time—since the 18th century or so it has been defined as "one who unjustly prints another person's copy." If there is any "theft", it is of the exclusive right to publish (assuming you think such a thing exists at all), not of property. This is not as new as one might think—the problem has been around in its roughly "modern" form for three hundred years or so, and in similar forms even earlier. See Adrian Johns, Piracy: The Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to Gates. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Photograph of Rabbi Yosef Zemelman of Przedecz Poland

Can a user please assist me to locate a photograph of Rabbi Yosef (Joseph) Alexander Zemelman, who was the Rabbi of Przedecz in Poland before and at the beginning of the Second World War. He succeeded in escaping to Warsaw where he took an active part in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My preliminary investigation is inconclusive. Info about when he arrived in Warsaw and whether he was associated with any particular organization(s) or better-documented figures would be most helpful. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Simonschaim (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Richmond Formulae.

In a discussion on one of the Wikipedia IRC channels, something called the 'Richmond formulae' was mentioned. Wikipedia does not appear to currently have an article on this. From the IRC discussions I gather it some kind of technique for analysing the results of political canvassing, and predicting voter response at elections?

Is there a documented statistical model behind it, and if so when was it initially developed?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it appears to be so, since the article Electoral software references it. Richmond formula is a redlink as yet, but someone could likely create an article about it anytime. --Jayron32 15:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A single blog post I found suggests it is a formula arrived at by Richmond (London) liberal democrats, who take as inputs results of door to door canvassing and output probable election results for the constituency. No more details than that, sadly. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like it could be the sort of thing to be kept secret. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There's also a Richmond Formula seemingly connected with measuring the solids content of fluids. It's a little vexing that the politicos on the blog discussed RF as if all should be familiar with it, but we can find little about it on the web. The blog suggested that all political parties would have some sort of algorithm for predicting results from canvass returns. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Geography question

which North American Mountain range (peak)

A. Has a name which aptly desribes it like White Sands New Mexico or Crater lake Oregon B. It is extremely difficult especially for the inexperienced to climb because of bad weather and special skills —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.96.226 (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Mount McKinley, by it's native name Denali. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Snowy mountains.

AKA Sierra Nevada Steewi (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Denali isn't a hard climb. If the weather's good, it's a basic walk-up (a class 1 on the Yosemite Decimal System), taking a few days. The risk comes from bad weather, which can leave you stuck in one place for weeks on end. --Carnildo (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Or permanently, if it turns a little too cold for too long. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And low O2 levels in the air can make an easy hike much more difficult then it would otherwise be. Googlemeister (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Gotta be the Rocky Mountains. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

How to explain invalidity of this syllogism?

I have a syllogism here, which is invalid:

All dogs are mortal. Plato is mortal. Thus, Plato is a dog.

Now, the problem I have is that not all syllogisms of this pattern (CaB,AaB->AaC) are definitely wrong, because another one for instance could be:

All humans are mortal. Jeanne D'Arc is mortal. Thus, Jeanne D'Arc is human.

So, two things: A, how do I call the invalidity s.q. validity of this? Partial validity? Ambivalidity? B, how would I describe the reason for the invalidity in the first case (Plato)? I can't say it's invalid because it's CaB,AaB->AaC, so how do I formulate the reason?--195.14.207.176 (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the argument is always invalid. The result may be valid, but that is by accident - a wrong argument can have a correct result ("There are odd numbers that are not prime, because 2 is an odd number, and 2 is not prime"). You have a hidden abduction in there - from "all X are Y", you derive "all Y are X", or, in your example, "all dog are mortal, hence all mortals are dogs. Plato is mortal....). Abduction is not logically sound. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

See Fallacy of the undistributed middle. Deor (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does there have to be a "reason" the first case is wrong? There's just no reason that it should be right. It's similar to saying that because an apple is on the table and an orange is on the same table, that an apple must be an orange. Um, what? --99.237.234.104 (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Despite having a three-part structure, with two premises and a conclusion, the argument you give is simply not a syllogism. Each of the parts of a syllogism has to start with "Some", "All" or "No". See syllogism article for details. -- noosphere 23:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Quote from Woody Allen, straight from Love and Death: "A. Socrates is a man. B. All men are mortal. C. All men are Socrates." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

noosph is correct that you don't have a syllogism. Let's pick it apart and see what's wrong.

1. All dogs are mortal.
2. Plato is mortal.
3. Thus, Plato is a dog.

Okay now, according to (1), dogs are included in the larger group of things which are mortal. Fine. By (2), Plato is also in the group of mortal beings. Also fine. So we have now established that both Plato and dogs are mortal. Okay, they're both members of the same group ... doesn't mean that they're the same thing. (Madonna and Queen Elizabeth are both female, but they're not the same person.)

A syllogism may be diagrammed as A → B → C, where the conclusion of the first statement is the premise of the second. What you have is A → B and C → B. The logically correct version would more your (3) ahead of (1). Then 'Plato is a dog' and 'All dogs are mortal', thus 'Plato is mortal.' (Of course this assumes that somebody's got a dog named 'Plato.')

Your second example

All humans are mortal.
Jeanne D'Arc is mortal.
Thus, Jeanne D'Arc is human.

is just as bad. It just seems different because it happens to be true. Syllogisms (and logic, generally) are not corcern with truth, but validity. So, while your first example is false, and the second one is true, both are invalid. B00P (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• What you can usually infer from the first two premises of such syllogisms is the satisfaction of a necessary condition which is not in itself a sufficient one for the conclusion. If all dogs are mortal, then it wouldn't be possible for Plato to be a dog if Plato were immortal. If all humans are mortal, an immortal Joan of Arc couldn't be human. (Please don't ask me where that puts Jesus of Nazareth, Son of Man and Son of God; it's a mystery to me.) So adding the second premise removes a possible barrier to the conclusion, but not all of them. Similar arguments are "1. You were driving recklessly. 2. But I wasn't speeding. 3. Therefore..." and "A. A number is equal to the product of its square roots. B. 4 = -2 x -2. C. Therefore -2 is the square root of 4." —— Shakescene (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the solution in Venn diagram form. Taggart.BBS (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

whoops, that's not the solution, I forgot that Plato was also mortal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taggart.BBS (talk • contribs) 20:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

For white peoples to have a dark brown skin

Is this possible for whites to have a brown skin like brown people or close to black people's skin tone. I though race and human skin color is not quite the same thing.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Tanning can make skin very dark - depending on the person. Some people claim there is no such thing as race. Others find racial characteristics in entire populations - not individuals. So, an individual can be an outlier within a population (racial) norm. -- kainaw™ 21:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Race doesn't have any real meaning in science. Skin colour is a very complicated characteristic determined by a mixture of genetics and environment (ie. a tan). It is certainly possible (and happens) for a fairly dark skinned person to be considered white and for a fairly pale skinned person to be considered black - race is often determined by things other than skin colour. Under the one-drop rule someone with just one black ancestor so far back that you can't tell just by looking at them can be considered black. There are examples of the opposite situation as well. --Tango (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Depending on the "science", race can have a highly significant meaning. For example, some hypertension medications are racially dependent. If you are not the race the medication is designed for, it won't work well for you (if it works at all). If you are the correct race, it will likely provide a great benefit. Similarly, consider the entire science field of anthropology or forensic science - both rely heavily on racial characteristics. I feel it is better to claim the race doesn't have valid meaning outside of science because outside of science it tends to only mean skin color. -- kainaw™ 22:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to BiDil... the definition of "race" that the data supports (what little there is) is rather constrained. A lot of people consider BiDil to be more a marketing ploy than good science. In any case, the definition of "race" used here is at best statistical, like the other definitions of race that one gets in science—if your ancestors of the last 150 years or so are from X part of the world, you have a Y percent chance of having certain clusters of genes. Such a rubric does roughly sort out the world into "racial" categories in the aggregate (we find "Africans", "Europeans", "Asians", etc.), but it doesn't tell you much of anything about individuals within that group, and it plasters over a lot of exceptions and differences between groups and people. I'm not sure that such a statistical definition of "race" has a lot of meaning within science except in a very rough sense. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Then, a different question--what had been the reasons for the occurrences of black hair in the early 100 years to Anglos (e.g. Germans and English) while such occurrences had very seldom been to Scottish and some parts of Russians?Couchworthy (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue about that (and am not sure anyone knows "the reasons" for such things), but it seems to me that black/darker hair is certainly the norm amongst human beings, and that lighter colored hair is the rarity. Blonde and red hair are certainly mutations—see Blonde#Origins (and conversely, Black hair). --Mr.98 (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"Race" refers to the idea that you can divide people up into a single, set number of non-overlapping groups. That isn't true. It is certainly true that there are difference between people and there are correlations between certain characteristics, but there is no simple dividing line where one race becomes another. Where you draw that line is going to depend on why you are grouping people together. --Tango (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Part of the question is what you (or society in general) define to be "white" and "black"—it isn't a rigorous scientific definition at all. What is someone who has one black parent and one white parent? "Mixed-race", in some quarters, but usually "black" and not "white". Race and skin color are not the same thing, but psychologically speaking, "whiteness" is usually defined in part by the color of the skin (though having non-white skin does not necessarily make one "black"—it just makes one "not white" and something else). This is a cultural construct, though (which does not make it a powerful one!). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A couple of comments: First, race is entirely a social construct. That means that how races are defined varies from one culture to another, while some cultures have no concept of race. There is no more scientific support for one cultural way of defining (or ignoring) race than for any other. So, for example, Americans define people of (at least partial) sub-Saharan African origin as "black". However, in Australia, the aborigines, who are probably more remote genetically from Africans than Europeans are, are called "black." Our article race discusses the many ways in which humanity has been sliced and diced, generally without any real scientific justification. Now, Kainaw has pointed out that some illnesses have a genetic component and some groups of people with a shared genetic background may respond differently to certain drugs. However, genetic distributions do not correspond to our ideas of race. A given gene may be spread across a variety of populations that our culture sees as members of different races. It is more the exception than the rule that a given disease or drug will apply to a group to which we've assigned a cultural label. For example, lactose intolerance is a genetically linked condition that is spread across most human populations, including a majority of people in southern Europe and on every other continent (except Americans of northern European heritage). Lactose tolerance is a condition concentrated not only in northern Europeans but also in the African Fulani people, which most North Americans would identify as "black". Another genetic condition with a distribution that does not correspond to "racial" categories is Coeliac disease. So, while science does show that certain conditions have a genetic basis, other than the trivial condition of skin color, those conditions generally do not correspond to our "racial" categories. Marco polo (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If you spread genetic distributions (like skin color distributions) out on the aggregate, you get things that look a lot like "races". See, e.g. Cavalli-Sforza's Map of Human Genetic Distribution. We get our "Asians" and our "Europeans" and our "Africans" and our "Australians" more or less. But we are talking here only about the aggregates—we are smoothing away all of the variations between individuals and sub-groups of people and etc. And even within this very broad averaging of genetic similarity, the colors bleed into each other seamlessly, even if they cluster in certain highly-populous regions of the world. That's about as close as I can really ever find to a scientific definition of what we might call "race"—but it bears no resemblance to the popular definitions, and tells you absolutely nothing about individuals, only populations (and mostly historical populations at that). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to respond directly to the OP's question: Yes, people who are defined as "white" can certainly have darker skin than people who are defined as "black". This is purely anecdotal, but on a trip to Florida, I saw a blond surfer and noticed that his skin tone was darker than that of what Americans would call a "light-skinned black man" next to him. Marco polo (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The flaw is the colloquialism "white". People from India are darker-skinned, sometimes almost black, but they are considered caucasian racially; as compared with "orientals", i.e. "mongoloid"; or central/southern black Africans, i.e. "negroid", for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is yet more evidence of the uselessness of "race": I wouldn't call someone from India "Caucasian". I would call them "(South) Asian". South Asians are sometimes included in the Caucasian race, though, you are right. If people can't even agree on what "Caucasian" means, how can it be a useful classification? If there was some non-arbitrary definition, then people wouldn't disagree on what it is. --Tango (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is where the issue of sub-races starts to come into it, such as "Mediterranean" vs. "Scandinavian". The real issue is why it's done, beyond the obvious fact that it's a human obsession to classify everything. For some, it's simply interesting. For others, it's "us vs. them". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Exhibit A: George Hamilton.[3] Clarityfiend (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

insurance info question

I'm wondering if s.o. can point me in the right direction to find info on insurance industry misdealings, such as auto-charging $2000 for $1000 in life insurance. I would naively think that if you make monthly payments on a life insurance policy, that once you've paid the value of the policy, you'd be full up. Is there regulation on this kind of thing (USA, Calif.), or is whatever they can trick people into signing up for considered valid? (I know we shouldn't be giving legal advice, but I don't even know which key words to use in a google search.) kwami (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Relevant links might be the California Department of Insurance, which has consumer hot-line numbers for complaints and questions — they have a whole department about this in the government of California, and you should take advantage of it — and our articles term life insurance and whole life insurance; I think you are asking about the latter. Speaking broadly, any company can sell any consumer anything at any price if both sides agree, though there are laws about price gouging in some narrow circumstances. With insurance, overcharging is more controversial than on most other items, because no consumer fully understands what they are actually purchasing, and some insurance contracts (or the prices for a particular contract) might be considered unconscionable — again, this is in a few narrow cases. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

After reading what I just typed, I hasten to add that insurance is heavily regulated throughout the United States and there are more consumer protections in place than I implied above. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that's exactly what I was looking for! kwami (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If you expect to pay your last insurance premium when you have paid the value of the claim, you’re going to be sadly disappointed. The entire point is that you are expected to pay more than the claim, so that the insurance company can make a better profit. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Pirate Latitudes

At one point in Pirate Latitudes, the pirates are inspecting the silver bars aboard the galleon they captured, and are dismayed to find that most of them are at least half platinum, because "platinum was a worthless metal". I find this a bit hard to believe, since platinum is so much rarer than gold or silver. However, Michael Crichton typically researches everything and doesn't make any glaring errors. Was platinum really worthless in the 17th century? --70.245.188.122 (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, platinum wasn't pricey until the early 20th century [4]. Wrad (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not only was platinum worthless at that time, but aluminum was one of the most expensive metals as late as the 19th century. --Jayron32 14:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, they would have been thrilled if the bars were aluminum. Googlemeister (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, they wouldn't. Metallic aluminum wasn't discovered until 1808, and wasn't refined until 1825. 17th-century pirates coming across a crate of aluminum bars would have tossed them aside as being worthless. --Carnildo (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the now-much-greater value of platinum due to its use in catalytic converters? Without them, there definitely wouldn't be as much demand for the stuff. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Help me find a Poe essay

I am having trouble finding an essay by Edgar Allan Poe called "The Importance of the Single Effect in a Prose Tale".

A free downloadable copy of the full essay would be perfect, but a pointer to a book the essay is anthologized in would be good too. Thanks for your help! -- noosphere 23:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me, by Googling around, that it may be just a section excerpted from one of Poe's essays on Hawthorne that people are giving that title today. The three essays on Hawthorne are all reprinted in the Modern Library volume "Edgar Allen Poe: Essays and Reviews" (which is where I would expect to find basically any of Poe's essays—the Modern Library editions are pretty thorough). They are also probably online—e.g. here is one of them (which mentions single effect, but once). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

December 17

Unacceptable and acceptable

I have noticed that Germans and Italians look at their own history in a different way. Almost all Germans are ashamed of Nazis and Hitler, but many Italians look at italian fascism and Mussolini with pride, even Berlusconi refused to condemn Mussolini in a TV interview and other time he called him "a great statesman". Also when I went to Italy last year I was suprised to see a lot of Mussolini memorabilia all around the country, while Im pretty sure that its impossible to find something like that in Germany. In Italy its legal and you can even see people wearing shirts with Mussolinis picture on it. Not to mention football players like Christian Abbiati and Paolo Di Canio that are openly fascist, even though they both claim that they are not nazis.

My question is how come that Italians(many recognized intellectuals as well) have a different view of their WW2 and pre-WW2 past then Germans? Was Italian fascism so different then German fascism and whats the main difference? Is it just the mentality of these nations or is there an explanation in the natures of these regimes? How come one of the is unacceptable in this century while the other one is considered folklore? СССССС (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The main difference, in terms of history, is that Italy for the most part lacked participation in the Holocaust. Italian Fascism in general was based on some rather strong theories of nationalism and the role of the state, but they were never tied up with the disgusting racial politics that thrived in Germany. Fascism and Nazism are not quite the same thing. Fascism is anti-democratic and dictatorial, to be sure, and all of the evils that usually go with that, but Nazism is more about open warfare against your own people than Italian Fascism. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

However, Mussolini was a confirmed racist according to his adoring mistress, and the Fascist government had a policy of forced Italianization and social Darwinism. Also the Blackshirts were often quite brutal. Still, as Mr. 98 points out, the Fascists had little direct involvement in the Holocaust before the German occupation of Italy, so they have earned less moral outrage than the German Nazis. Marco polo (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, they shot him, so they get some points for coming to their good senses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Another question is then what went wrong suddenly to many states to turn against their citizen? For example, in a country like Germany, many sources indicate that Jewish population had been much assimilated and had a higher portion of established positions of residency in comparison to the population ratio. The emergence of notable academicians in varieties of disciplines is an example. This would not had been an easy task to pass the controlled stages if there had been a hostile environment.Couchworthy (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As with any question like this, there are a large number of interrelated causes. The short version, though, is that people were going through some hard times in the 1930's and were looking for somebody to blame. The Jews were a good choice (there were lots of rich Jewish bankers, for example, and people like blaming rich bankers for things [as we well know!]). --Tango (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There is also the myth that Mussolini made the trains run on time. Many people praise the fascist governments of improving counties after the destruction of WWI and the great depression although how much this is down to fascist politicians and policies is debatable. Also Mussolini is remembered for making Italy a significant power once more, the bombing and gassing of foreign civilians in the Second Italo-Abyssinian War is mostly downplayed as it was a brutally short war. You may be interested in this review by George Orwell of a pamphlet by Michael Foot which hypothetically puts Mussolini on trial shortly after the fall of the fascist government (the pamphlet itself does not seem to be online) meltBanana 04:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe part of the problem is that Italy just can't seem to make up its mind. They basically switched sides in both World War I and II. There was a joke during the Israeli 6-day war in 1967: "As soon as Italy heard there was a war, they surrendered." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Italy had its share of atrocities, from the above mentioned forced Italianisation to anti-Jewish policies and a number of concentration camps (like Gonars and Rab - this second one was really only a summer retreat, according to the recently flogged Berlusconi) but they did keep these things local, i.e. confined to Great Italy alone, and they did switch sides, as Bugs points out, so they were given some (unjustified, IMO) leniency after the war. But the main difference I see is that Germany went through strict denazification after the war, and Italy (and Japan, for that matter - another offender) didn't, so fascist rhetoric and apologetics can creep into modern discourse much more unobstructed.

I remember seeing some American movie from the sixties or seventies that was basically tourist propaganda for Italy (it was paid for in part by Italy, and it was called Pronto! or Forza! or something those lines). It had a minor character, a cab driver who made nostalgic references to Mussolini. The character was meant to be humorous, a living-in-the-past sorta yokel, but I couldn't help thinking that exchanging his longing for Benito to return with a longing for Adolf to return would make him a very grim character indeed. And at least as far as I am concerned, those two are easily exchangeable - 65 years ago both of them had a hard-on for exterminating the hell out of my ancestors. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I see it the other way round: the humbling of Germany after WWII is an extremely rare exception in history. I can think of no other country that was actually, literally forced to come to terms with its past like that. For this to be possible, Germany had to be roundly defeated and conquered beyond any possible second-guessing (unlike, say, Germany in the First World War, or Japan in WWII, which surrendered before an invasion). All great powers (and many not so great powers) have hideous things in their history, but almost all retain the privilege of considering them glorious memories of great men and great deeds. Or at least someone else's fault, like blaming Hitler for all the crimes of his lesser Axis allies. Stalin came in third in the vote for the greatest Russian ever, and I suspect they actually rigged the vote so he wouldn't win (that would have been a bit unseemly, not least since he wasn't Russian). Napoleon, an aggressive militarist dictator, is a hero to many French people. Likewise Charles XII of Sweden. Many Belgians don't exactly share the rest of the world's view of the history of the Congo. British people don't like to think that the RAF bombed German cities just to butcher civilians, but it did. Americans have pretty much forgotten the conquest of the Philippines, which was the Iraq war of its day, and so has the rest of the world. Etc., etc. So in this respect, Mussolini's continued respectability in Italy is not unusual. Italy switched sides in the war, and after that, the Allies needed to get along with the locals more than they needed to judge them. Plus after the war, there was a pretty powerful Italian Communist party to contend with, so the western powers were not interested in alienating the right wing.--Rallette (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If anybody thinks there was no Holocaust activity in Italy, you might want to read The Garden of the Finzi-Continis. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

General Eisenhower had ordered that there was to be "No Fraternization" between U.S. troops and Germans. Over a period of many months this policy was loosened, first by permitting US GIs to talk to German children, then also allowing them to talk to adults in certain circumstances.

General Jacob H. Smith's infamous order "KILL EVERY ONE OVER TEN" was the caption in the New York Journal cartoon on May 5, 1902. Published in the New York Journal-American, May 5, 1902.

I agree with the post above, the Italians, just as the Americans, have never needed to face their history in the same way as the Germans, who pretty much had it rubbed in what had been done in their name, see Denazification. Sometimes the U.S. approach to this was just plain stupid though, see this.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 17:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is really saying that the Italians had clean hands in this regard, but they were certainly cleaner than the Germans. Gonars and Rab are much more like "regular" wartime internment camps than they are like Auschwitz or Buchenwald. And I do think that most people see a difference between "let's deport some of our Jews to another country and let them figure out what to do with them" and taking on the job of actual slaughter.

Let's phrase this another way. If Hitler hadn't butchered people in camps, how would he be remembered? Probably a LOT better—people would say, "well, he was tough and dictatorial, to be sure, and he did start that war and all, but the country was in a pretty bad place when he took over, and he offered a way out of that for a lot of people." I mean, heck, Russians still talk that way about Stalin a good deal of the time, even with all his atrocities.

I think the German stance on the Nazis is actually more odd. Most countries have a more mixed stance towards their previous dictators, in my limited experience. They recognize that dictators rarely just "show up"—there are usually conditions that give them the power to take over. Being a warmonger doesn't immediately put you into "no longer remotely sympathizable" camp. Butchering civilians does not, either (as has been pointed out, basically every European and Western power has done this fairly routinely). But committing genocide seems to still carry with it that special edge. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it all boils down to personal opinion in the end, I guess. I don't like the fact that there are some people in high Italian politics that refuse to see Mussolini for the war criminal he was simply because it was my own people that were chalked up for destruction. Granted, "destruction" in this sentence amounts to elimination of national identity by forced italianisation and there were only some extreme cases, but for me that's enough to seriously not like the fascists. Nor people who to this day fail to admit they were criminals. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, but basically every major participant nation committed war crimes during WWII. The fact that the Italians "only" killed a few thousand people in their camps (compared to the millions in Hitler's, or the hundreds of thousands of civilians the US and British killed in their indiscriminate bombing campaigns) makes it hard to really narrow out Mussolini as one of the major bad guys, I think. He wasn't great, but he's no Hitler. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe Hitler was worse then Stalin if you are purely counting, but people still argue about the subject. But the fact is Hitler was beaten and died, but Stalin was left to do what he pleased, occupying most of eastern Europe for 50 years under oppression. He is seen as worse in a lot of eastern Europe. Mussolini doesn't measure up to either. Vespine (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Where's the fallacy in this?

Pair o' Ravens

Pair o' Ducks

Suppose you want to prove a statement; for the sake of example I'll use "All (non-albino) crows are black." This statement is clearly equivalent to its contrapositive, "All non-black objects aren't (non-albino) crows." Therefore, any evidence gathered to support this second statement supports the original statement as well, so you can simply observe several hundred non-black objects in your house, and this is as good evidence as observing an equal number of black, non-albino crows. Therefore, it is possible to prove, in the scientific sense at least, every possible statement by applying this same method. --75.28.53.166 (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

We have an article: raven paradox. Algebraist 02:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If an object is a raven, then it is black.

If an object is not black, then it is not a raven.

Observing several hundred non-black objects in your house does not prove that all ravens are black. All it proves is that if all ravens are black, then those objects are not ravens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

So it's not a paradox, is it, then? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Most things called "paradox" aren't really paradoxes. They are just counter-intuitive statements. --Tango (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that a paradox, or just counter-intuitive? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Most philosophers consider it to be a veridical paradox, in Quine's useful terminology. Algebraist 13:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The root of the fallacy - or the mistake, since it isn't really a logical fallacy - is that we create knowledge by thinking, rather than absorbing it directly from the outside world through our pores. Observing increasingly large numbers of black ravens is only valid evidence if it contradicts some theory that said you wouldn't be able to find X number of black ravens unless all ravens were black. Our (tentative) certainty that all ravens are black isn't based on having observed every raven. Even observing one black raven doesn't prove indisputably that one raven is black, since we are fallible. 213.122.6.175 (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a fallacy itself, though. If we cannot accept observation (ie. "The raven I am observing is black") then we cannot make any statement of fact. At some point you have to accept an observation as accurate (not indisputable, just accurate). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Summary Book on the Roman Empire

I've been reading a lot of recent history lately, but realized that I haven't read a good book on the Roman Empire. Can anyone recommend a good summary book that is readily (read: inexpensively) available on Amazon and that offers a military and cultural history of the Roman Empire? I am especially interested in the comments of anyone who has read several books on the subject, and would like to suggest the one that they would read if they could only read one in their lifetime.NByz (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire is very famous. Of course, you'd have to have about two months of time you could dedicate exclusively to reading it :) TomorrowTime (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I was going to include a 500-1000 page suggestion above...NByz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC).

The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire redirects to Gibbon's Decline and Fall. It only covers the period from Mark Aurel onwards. I have been listening to the LibriVox audiobook version (full text, free, variable speakers), and its great. Gibbon has a mean sense of humor, and is insightful. But of course it's very dated, and we now know a lot more. Mommsen's History of Rome is a classic, and complements Gibbon, but it's also 150 years out of date. If you like listening, the History of Rome Podcast is quite decent, in that it is competently and pleasantly spoken and does not make me wince when listening. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Robin Lane Fox's The Classical World has had good reviews and is available cheaply in paperback, if you search around. It also covers ancient Greece, and I believe it only runs to around the time of Hadrian, so it would complement Decline and Fall rather well. Warofdreams talk 10:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll add it to the ole Amazon wish list. Have you read it? Can you recommend it?NByz (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've not read it; I bought it as a present for a relative who tells me it is very good - but they might just be being polite! Warofdreams talk 18:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov was not a historian, but he did write very readably and produced a two-volume history, "The Roman Republic" and "The Roman Empire". I liked them, but I haven't read enough other material to say how they compare. I also don't know if they're in print today, but libraries should have them. --Anonymous, 06:41 UTC, December 18, 2009.

Biggest buildings

Hi, is there a list on wikipedia where you can find the biggest buildings in the world? -Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.211.84.42 (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

How are you defining biggest? Tallest, greatest by volume, largest by area? --Phil Holmes (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

We have the conveniently-named list of largest buildings in the world. If you are actually after the tallest buildings, see the list of tallest buildings and structures in the world. Warofdreams talk 10:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

geography question

What are amazing structure(s) that all of us should visit at least once in our lifetime ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.161.42 (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Raquel Welch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wonders of the World. --Jayron32 14:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It really depends on where you are your income. I would love to visit the wonders of the world but financially it ain't possible so you may be interested in looking at the wonders of your own country. If that's England (like me) you'll have places like Buckingham Palace, White Cliffs of Dover, Humber Bridge, Worcester Cathedral, Stone Henge, Hadrians Wall, any of the Walled Cities (York - my home town - is particularly beautiful). In an ideal world Jayron's given you the answer, but realistically most people in the world won't get to visit all the listed wonders (plus there is much contention about the list itself!). 14:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk)

The list for Wonders of the Medieval World seems strange - the first three entries aren't Medieval at all! Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Second anon, you should visit Avebury too. Unlike Stonehenge, you can walk inside the circles, examine the stones up close, touch them, etc. Might be worth checking for any smaller stone circles or standing stones near you too, if you want to see that sort of thing. Visit on a misty winter morning and you'll have it to yourself. 86.176.191.243 (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

DJ Hero & Copyright Law

I remember when watching a documentary about copyright law, RiP!, a scene in which they added up the total costs of clearing all the samples in Girl Talk's music and it was astronomical. Because of this he simple doesn't, which puts his music on a dubious level of legality. The recent game DJ Hero has a sample/mashup based soundtrack of almost songs.

1. Do the same standards of clearing samples apply to this game?

2. If so does anyone know either

a. whether or not they cleared the sample or

b. where I could find that out?

Samineru (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Presumably, the game DJ Hero has cleared the use of the copyrighted music for the specific purpose of use in the normal operation of the game. If you then were to take music you recorded from the game and passed it off as your own, then you would be violating copyright. --Jayron32 13:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Practically, you could find out if they failed to clear samples by checking the news for a lawsuit. In practice, mainstream presentations of sampled music need to clear samples because there is a much higher chance of being caught. An artist who has not been paid for being sampled in a Kanye West song is more likely to a) find out about it and b) care than if they were sampled by an artist who sells 3000 copies of their album and has no mainstream airplay. Also, the more obvious the sample (or the more mainstream the sample), the higher risk of not clearing it. Someone sampled by The Bomb Squad is less likely to notice that it was their sample than Kanye sampling Chaka Khan's "Through the Fire" in "Through the Wire".--droptone (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The odds are that there is some documentation that comes with the game, somewhere, that gives some hint of the sampling going on. I'd be surprised if they didn't clear all samples first—it would be kind of dumb in the case of a game that intended to sell a lot of copies. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Um did you read the article you linked to? Specifically DJ Hero#Soundtrack "Over 100 individual songs based on master recordings have been licensed by Activision, composed into 94 DJ mixes by both participating internationally-known DJs and an in-house remix team; some mixes will feature the same song as both parts of the mix, as in turntablism". For any major game, you can be resonably assured the music is properly licensed. And yes, they definitely do have to get a license to use the music if it wasn't created for them or out of copyright. (GTA games are known for their licensed music [5].) How the costs compare to other stuff I don't know. Some TV series have either been held up (I believe it's been cited as a reason Cold Case has not yet been released on DVD) or had their music replaced when released on DVD because of licensing costs so it can be a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Earth Changes II

If, God forbid, this were to ever happen, where on earth would be the safest place to be? To be honest, the more I read about 2012 phenomenon, the skeptical I'm becoming of it. However, just in case..... --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

See bullshit. --Jayron32 13:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Safest place on earth to avoid a disaster is probably somewhere remote and a long way from fault lines. The south pole, or central Australia come to mind, but you would need to have them pre-stocked with supplies. Granted, the validity of the answer will depend on what the disaster would be. Mine was chosen with regards to human action (nuclear war, rioting etc), earthquakes or tsunamis. If you have a giant meteor heading for earth, well, maybe those are not good choices, but you pays your money and takes your chances. Googlemeister (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Earth and its people are likely to face many challenges over the next couple of decades, but I would be more concerned about the challenges given a high chance of probability by scientific investigators, such as climate change, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and perhaps peak oil, rather than challenges predicted by religious myths. The scientifically supported challenges are global in nature, such that there is really nowhere to hide, though you might want to sell any beachfront property. The challenges I have mentioned are likely to spark social, economic, and political stress, including an increase in failed states and perhaps warfare and perhaps a breakdown in order in some areas. My personal advice, which I know I probably should not offer on the Reference Desk, would be to learn basic skills such as gardening and perhaps things like sewing or woodworking to prepare for severe economic trouble, and to find a community with strong community ties that will resist a breakdown in social order. All other things being equal, I would aim for small towns with a strong local economy, away from the coast but along a rail line. Marco polo (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if it would safe to be in a balloon or an airplane.
:-D
Civic Cat (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That might delay your anihilation by a few seconds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Geography question

Which is the port city

1.whose name is last name of its founder a government official, developer and entreprenuer 2. It is known only by its initials 3.,it has perfect stretch of white sandy beach that extends for miles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.70.125 (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's a trick. Get an axe. --M@rēino 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln

Would Abraham Lincoln have used a walking stick for whatever reason in the last years of his life? This is not a homework question. Just curious. --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Probably. Wikipedia has an An unsourced, unverified story holding that Lincoln's widow bequeathed Lincoln's walking stick to Frederick Douglass. If you're dying to know for sure, call the Home of Frederick Douglass at (202) 426-5961 and ask. --M@rēino 22:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting story. I may have to follow up on your suggestion. Thank you very much.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't every 19th Century gent carry a stick? - see American "walking canes". Alansplodge (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is a picture of Lincoln's walking stick at Douglass' museum. --Sean 14:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

When was she regent?

Exactly which years was Louise of Savoy regent for her son? --85.226.44.238 (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be hard to nail down the exact dates from the information in the articles Louise of Savoy or Francis I of France. She was not regent because of the minority of the king, since he became king at age 20, well into adulthood by standards of the day. The Louise article indicates she served as regent during Francis's absence. This probably meant she was put in charge when he wasn't availible to be in charge, usually because of military campaigns he was on, or perhaps when he was off on diplomatic negotiations. Sometimes, she was sent herself on diplomatic negotiations (see War of the League of Cognac, where she was sent to negotiate an important treaty). So, I would guess that you could construct a reasonable timeline of when she was likely to have been regent based upon those times when Francis was away leading his army in a war, but it was also likely a common enough occurance that it was not noted as a regency in the traditional sense, like when a mother rules for her infant son. --Jayron32 03:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

...and who was regent in France after François was captured at the [Battle of Pavia (1525)|[Battle of Pavia]] (24 February 1525) and hauled off to Madrid, where he wrote to his mother?--Wetman (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably Louise. But that is likely not the only time she was regent, and she was likely regent from before his capture. Someone had to be handling the domestic affairs of the kingdom while he was off fighting his wars. I wasn't doubting that she was an official regent at those times, I was only noting that nailing down the exact dates she served as official regent would be difficult from the sources availible at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 04:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

French Wikipedia seem to mention 1515, 1525-26 and 1529, but I would like to have it confirmed - and were there other times? When was Francis abroad? --85.226.44.238 (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis

I’m writing a piece on Jefferson Davis and am in need of some literature that portrays him in a negative light. I know he is disliked by the likes of David Potter and David Donald but I’m not sure where to look if anyone could point me to titles of their works that criticize Davis or if anyone can think of any other authors and titles that would be great. Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.62.217 (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I cannot completely answer your question, because this isn't my field, but I do have two thoughts:
  • If you can get to a full-size reference library -- like the main branch in a major city or university -- they should have both microfiche and electronic copies of newspapers from the 1860s. I can assume that Mr. Davis was portrayed in a very negative light by some Southern and most Northern newspapers of that era.
  • You should also try to get your hands on a couple books from this Bibliography. Again, I don't know which ones are the critical ones, but for such a controversial figure, some of the books must be negative in tone. --M@rēino 22:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you need "literature" as in "classic literature" or as in "something published"? I can point you to bits from a religious magazine that (if I remember rightly) might be a good example of what you want. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Nyttend, Anything will do so long as is critical of him. I dont mind if its online, published, primary or secondry everything helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.62.217 (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Very good. What I have is from this PDF. Let me warn you, first: don't go there unless you have a fast Internet connection — it's 800 MB and the server isn't too fast. I downloaded this and several related documents last year for a school project, and the only way I could do it was to start the download before I went to bed so that it would download overnight. If you don't think you have the time to download the whole thing, tell me and I'll copy the text into my userspace, where you can read it easily. I've found three references to Davis in this document: on pages 189, 266, and 292. These page numbers are the numbers that you can see were on the original pages, by the way, and not necessarily those of the PDF itself. Context is (189) calling Davis a thief and a conspirator to rebel against the USA, (266) calling Davis the leader of "rebel hordes", and (292) talking about Davis coming in from a battle with blood-covered hands and saying that he's utterly unworthy to partake of the Lord's Supper. The document is the 1861 volume of the Reformed Presbyterian, which was at that time one of the two official periodicals of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America. As this denomination had been strongly anti-slavery since 1800, it was almost exclusively a northern denomination; its only church in a Confederate state was in what's today the northern part of the West Virginia Panhandle, where of course slavery wasn't as popular. If you don't have time/ability to download the entire document, I'll also get you whatever publication information you need. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The little book Why the North Won the Civil War by David Herbert Donald has a trenchant little essay by David M. Potter "Jefferson Davis and the Political Factors in the Confederate Defeat" which details why he wasn't really the best man for the job. If Davis had given Robert E. Lee overall control over military matters and let Judah P. Benjamin run things on the civilian side, then probably the war could have lasted a year or more longer than it did... AnonMoos (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, part of Davis' problem was that he needed to be a Lincoln and couldn't be, because the southern states didn't want a strong central government. That was just one of their many problems, of course. Ultimately, it was probably resources, or lack thereof, that made the south's cause hopeless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Both of those arguments -- that the South lost because it didn't have a strong central government ("died of states' rights"), and that it lost because it had fewer resources -- are arguments Davis made, and form part of the Lost Cause interpretation. These views were once commonly held, but have been discredited, or at least qualified or strongly challenged. —Kevin Myers 02:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Another thing that helped turn the tide was when the north got some competent (and ruthless) leadership. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There are several hits at this Google Books search, though you may have to track down the actual books to see what they have to say. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Davis, given his rigid views and inflexible personal style, naturally made enemies of a huge range of Confederate officers and officials. The memoirs of Joseph E. Johnston were republished in trade paperback about 15 or 20 years ago. See also these secondary sources: Statesmen of the Lost Cause: Jefferson Davis and his Cabinet by Burton J. Hendrick (New York, 1939) and The Confederate Republic: A Revolution Against Politics by George C. Rable (UNC Press, Chapel Hill, 1994, ISBN 0-8078-2144-6). You can read the Journal of the Congress of the Confederate States on line at the "American Memory" site of the Library of Congress. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Socialism & the US

This question has been puzzling me for a long time, but it's taken a while to work out how to word it. I am NOT trying to gain opinion, or to troll by asking something provocative in the hope of getting flames, it is a genuine query. As such, I'm not looking for polemic answers, so much as a genuine explanation, and hopefully answers will be genuine, non-partisan responses:

Why does the US in general seem to have such a negative attitude towards socialism? Communism, yes, that I can understand, to some extent, at least - it may be "government of the people, for the people, and by the people", but its monolithic nature is largely anti-capitalist and anti-democratic, at least in the sense of democracy as understood in the US.

Socialism in modern parlance, though, doesn't share those qualities, but rather usually refers to the social democrat model - it is, in its generally accepted form, somewhere between US-style capitalism and communism, without the extremes of either model. It says that you can get rich through your own deeds, but that not everyone is able to, and those that can't require the government to step in to help, and as such, the state is responsible for maintaining a framework which will support the public.

It's even more perplexing given that most of the US's major allies have, or have had, some form of socialist government in power in recent history, in name at least. The UK's government is the Labour Party, as is Australia's (spelt Labor in their case) - both these parties are members of the Socialist International.

There are frequent questions on these boards relating to things like "is it true that education/health/etc costs less in Europe?". In many cases the answer is "yes", and it is largely because of the SocDem structures in those countries.

Let's face it, many of the major points of the New Deal, possibly the greatest economic package the US has ever unveiled, were inherently socialist. Yet when there's even a hint of state spending on social policies today (e.g., the recent fight over healthcare policy), the country seems to be up in arms.

Now, I can understand that the US, in general terms, may prefer other forms of political party, but I cannot for the life of me understand the pariah status that even the mildest social democrat tendencies elicit from its people. Why does this attitude exist?

Thanks in advance, Grutness...wha? 00:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A quick explanation would be that it runs counter to America's ideal about "rugged individualism". There's a built-in assumption that it encourages laziness and discourages industriousness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This is actually a question that has been puzzling political scientists since the early 20th century. A common answer is "no feudalism, no socialism." This means that while Europeans have an ingrained class consciousness that dates back to the era of serfs and lords, the U.S. has always been a theoretically "equal" country, at least for white people.

You're really asking two questions. One, why are Americans afraid of the word "socialism." Secondly, why is there so much opposition to welfare-state policies in the U.S.

For the first question, you have to remember a couple things. Firstly, most Americans would associate socialism with the Soviet Union, not with Sweden. Most Americans aren't really into Western European politics and wouldn't know that most Western European nations have been governed by officially socialist parties at one point or another or that those countries have done a lot better that the U.S. in addressing certain social ills. Secondly, socialism -- real socialism, meaning public ownership of the means of production -- is generally thought to have been a failure, even by left-of-center people in the U.S. Today's supposedly "socialist" parties in Western countries have generally dropped socialism from their platform. They advocate "a market economy but not a market society," which basically means they're just left-of-center "bourgeois" parties nowadays. Their "socialist" name is more a throwback to the old times than anything else. So it would make little sense for an American political movement today to associate itself with "socialism" when the only reason "socialist" parties in Western countries still do so is tradition.

The second question is harder to answer and really depends on one's point of view. My opinion is that because of the racial pseudo-caste system that has always existed in America -- or the perception of that system -- most white Americans associate themselves with the "haves" as opposed to the "have-nots." They identify with those who would be on the losing end of a redistribution of income, whether or not this is really true. Most poor Americans aren't black and most black Americans aren't poor. But in the mindset of the typical white person, "welfare recipient" means "minority." Ronald Reagan helped ingrain this attitude with his fictional Welfare Queen, who, he always pointed out, lived on the South Side of Chicago -- the black neighborhood. There's an extremely widespread attitude in the U.S. that poor blacks are living high off the hog on the tax dollar of the hard-working middle-class person. For some insight into this phenomenon, read about the Reagan Democrats, working-class whites who voted for Reagan in the 1980s.

Interestingly, I once saw a poll of Americans that showed about 20% thought they were in the wealthiest 1% of the country and another 20% thought they would be some day. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"most Americans would associate socialism with the Soviet Union, not with Sweden" I've heard this explanation before, but is it true? Has anyone conducted an opinion polls or anything about this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There's something else to remember: Most Americans are far more comfortable with government activism to address social problems than the current political status of the country would have you believe. If you read over some polls, for example, you'll get a picture of a country somewhat farther to the left on economic issues than you would expect. For example, a 2007 poll from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found 69% of respondents thought "Government should care for those who can't care for themselves." That's up from 57% in 1994. The number may have decreased since 2007 with all the anti-Obama hysteria being pushed by the right wing.

And a fourth factor: Right-wing forces in the U.S. such as the Heritage Foundation have convinced many Americans that welfare-state programs have done more harm than good. For example, the Cato Institute likes to claim that the U.S. has spent $9 trillion on government programs to fight poverty since Lyndon Johnson began his War on Poverty in 1964, yet we still have a lot of poverty, so social welfare spending must be a failure. What they don't tell you is that poverty actually declined markedly in the 1960s when these programs were enacted and stagnated after the government stopped enacting new anti-poverty programs in the 1970s. Few Americans are aware either that industrialized countries with strong welfare states actually have far fewer social ills, including poverty, than the U.S. There's really no monied interest out there to disseminate such facts to Americans. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

An answer to your question could be the subject of a book, or several books, since there are many perspectives on this question. And, of course, books on this have been written. Probably one of the more interesting ones, is What's the Matter with Kansas? by Thomas Frank. According to his thesis, there was a time 100 years ago or so when the culturally conservative, modestly educated white working (and agricultural) class of the interior and South of the United States supported the economically leftwing Populist Party. However, over the years, the culture of the left in the United States shifted away from that of the culturally conservative working-class whites who theoretically should make up the largest base for left politics.

I have to admit that I haven't read Frank's book, but I can give you a historical explanation for this. This happened in a couple of steps. First, during the first half of the 20th century, there was a big migration from rural areas to the growing industrial cities of the North, Midwest, and, to a lesser extent, California. This migration brought together both black and white workers. At first, the left-leaning Democrats did not seriously challenge segregation and other forms of legal, institutionalized racism, and they were able to hold on to their majority in both northern urban areas and across the South. However, beginning in the 1950s and increasingly in the 1960s, a coalition of educated white liberals and (in all but name) social democrats formed an effective coalition with blacks within the Democratic Party that led to civil rights legislation and black allegiance to the Democratic Party on the one hand. On the other hand, this trend led to alienation particularly among poorer and less educated whites, who felt that the Democratic Party had abandoned and forgotten them and become the champion of the blacks. This led to racist indignation and a feeling of betrayal among poorer and less educated whites, particularly when the educated elites who really controlled the Democratic Party seemed to prioritize racial issues ahead of bread-and-butter economic issues of concern to working-class whites. This alienation only increased during the 1970s and -80s when parts of the Democratic Party took up the causes of feminists and lesbians and gays, which offended the culturally conservative values of (often very religious) working-class whites outside of a few coastal enclaves in the Northeast, Midwest, and California, where working-class whites are not so culturally conservative. The rightwing Republican party, beginning in the 1960s with Richard Nixon and especially in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan, seized on this sense of alienation, cultural distaste, and latent racism by making scapegoats of "liberals", "cultural elites", and government as a whole. Republicans, and their very popular rabble-rousers in the media (e.g., Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and Bill O'Reilly, have convinced many whites of limited education and/or income that government (i.e., the government that takes your tax money and gives it to black welfare queens and funds gay marriage) is the source of working people's troubles, never the solution, and that the Democratic Party (which stands to the left of the Republican Party) is the enemy of normal white people (or "real Americans", in the words of Sarah Palin). Marco polo (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A very short answer would be that, like you said, it is "somewhere between US-style capitalism and communism". During WWII there would have been strong objections to anything perceived to be "somewhere between US-style capitalism and Nazism" - I think it's understandable that anti-Socialist sentiments came along with anti-Communist sentiments during the Cold War. In my understanding, before WWII all sorts of political ideas Americans would consider pretty radical or unfavourable today were much more acceptable. --π! 03:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I second Bugs's abbreviated answer: "Socialism" has become shorthand for: People who work hard will be forced to support the lazy. Tempshill (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the thinking of opponents of socialism all over the world, though, not just in America. And there are significant numbers of opponents of socialism in the UK, Australia, etc., so another way of looking at the question is: why do we tolerate government spending on social projects so spinelessly elsewhere in the world? 213.122.6.175 (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Way back in 1906, Werner Sombart published an essay "Why is there no Socialism in the United States?" which has remained a kind of classic in the field... AnonMoos (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

One more point I would make is that the political economy of the United States almost guarantees that socialist options never even make it to the table. The reason is that our two main parties are beholden for financing on rich people and corporations (and American political campaigns, with their requisite paid TV ads, are very expensive). Obviously, rich people and for-profit corporations do not want any policies that reduce their capital, wealth, or income, as almost any socialist policy would, so they will not fund candidates or parties who propose such policies. Instead they will fund their opponents, who paint themselves as champions of hardworking "real" Americans—who are virtuously self-reliant and don't need government help—and as opponents of handouts for poor (read black) people. Likewise, all of the major media in the United States are privately owned and effectively controlled by the wealthy and capital. Furthermore, those media rely for income on corporate advertising. No major media outlet dares to present any remotely socialist policy proposal without also presenting an overwhelming and withering critique of the proposal by conservative Republican media personalities. This is done in the name of "balance", but somehow the major media balance always tips toward policies that favor the interests of the wealthy and capital. Marco polo (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Even with all that, the American media are accused by American right-wingers of being far too liberal in general. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"Socialism," has been described as the government taking an active interest in the welfare of the people. People during the 20th century came to expect the government do do lots of things for their benefit, such as disaster relief, social security, and medicare, without it constituting dreaded "socialism." In 1927 there were devastating floods of the Mississippi River and some of its tributaries, and initially President Hoover Coolidge said that it was not the federal government's job to provide housing and food for those flooded out of their homes. It was expected that the Red Cross, from charitable donations, might rent tents from the Army. Today we take it as a given that the government should send all needed aid (however lacking the result may be in practice). We expect the government to provide monthly checks to those who have never been able to work due to birth defects, to widows and orphans of workers, or to workers disabled by illness or injury, and that medicare should fund medical treatment of the elderly, but these are not generally though of as the dreaded "socialism." The working poor, who get up early to go to a crummy low paying job, hate the notion of a nonworking multigeneration "welfare class" which lays around and gets a check, while being equally capable of doing the same crummy job. They hate "transfer payments" take their tax dollars and hand them over to nonproductive folks. At the same time, the working poor fear illegal immigrants who will work for less pay than the barely living wage they get, and they hate the export of jobs to the Third World where someone will make gadgets or talk on the phone for scant wages. These hatreds and fears are manipulated by politicians and radio and TV bloviators. Edison (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"I think a very simple answer here is that there seems to be a widespread belief, especially among conservatives, but others as well, that "Socialism" is nothing more than a politically correct way of saying "Communism". APL (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Limbaughs and the Hannities and their kind use the terms "liberal", "socialist" and "communist" as equivalents. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that the House Unamerican Activities Committee had a lot to do with where the US is now politically. Communists, socialists, and even liberals were attacked, publicly humiliated, and lost their jobs, and this sinister attack on the rights of the left rightly left a permanent impression that it was dangerous to publicly be a "leftist", which left very few remaining, from then to right now. StuRat (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Umm, have you ever heard of a decade called "the sixties"? (From fifty years ago to forty years ago.) AnonMoos (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I well remember the 1968 election, when the liberal-leaning American public elected that well-known leftist, Richard Nixon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

After giving a mighty thumping to Barry Goldwater (who presented himself as an explicitly ideologically Right-wing candidate) four years earlier. If even Angela Davis was able to hold on to her job at UCLA, I don't see how it can be said that the populace of the United States was so uniformly traumatized that none dared to express a leftish sentiment... AnonMoos (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Back to Grutness's question, or to one small part of it: most of the US's major allies have, or have had, some form of socialist government in power in recent history, in name at least. The UK's government is the Labour Party, as is Australia's (spelt Labor in their case) - both these parties are members of the Socialist International. Perhaps Britain's Labour Party (aka New Labour) just hasn't got around to leaving it. It's a conservative party, though arguably not as conservative as is the Conservative Party. Blair and Brown have happily hosted Thatcher at no. 10; they're happier to make approving references to her than to Attlee, I believe. -- Hoary (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Jury nullification

Is jury nullification morally acceptable? ----J4\/4 <talk> 17:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Which of your teachers asked you to write an essay on this question? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Read Consequentialism. If you agree with the theory that the article describes, then the answer is "yes". If you disagree, then the answer is "no." --M@rēino 19:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a reference desk, not a debating society, sorry. --Tango (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The question could be framed as asking for references relative to when jury nullification has been considered moral. In The Devil and Daniel Webster, a fictional work from 1937, a man is acquitted by a jury of the damned, who found against the Devil, saying ""Perhaps 'tis not strictly in accordance with the evidence, but even the damned may salute the eloquence of Mr. Webster." Saving a man's soul from hell contrary to the law and the facts of the case was considered moral in that story. Common law supports the right or at least the power of the jury to find contrary to the law, as a check against tyranny. Nontheless, jurors who espouse the doctrine have been removed from the jury, and counsel (in the US) generally may not tell the jury it is an option. In the US, it has been considered moral for juries to have refused to convict Peter Zenger [6]under colonial era libel laws for criticizing the Governor, or to enforce the Fugitive Slave law[7]. Uses of jury nullification widely considered immoral occurred in the U.S. South when all white juries ignored clear evidence of the lynching of Negroes[8]. The morality of nullification is all over the map, as defendants protesting the Vietnam War[9], opposing abortion, supporting marijuana use or opposing limits on gun ownership have sought to get juries to render verdicts "not strictly in accord with the evidence" by making emotional appeals[10]. See also [11], [12], (in military trials), [13]. Edison (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Jury nullification is not only morally acceptable, it is morally required. If a law is unjust, the jury should never enforce it. After all, the people are governed by the laws, so they should have the final say in which laws are valid. Without this vital check on governmental power, there's nothing to stop the government as a whole from degrading into despotic tyranny where the people have no say in anything. Although jurors have the power of jury nullification, they currently don't have the right to be informed of it! This means that only the few jurors who already were aware of this right would exercise it, while the vast majority would continue to convict people of violating unjust laws. In effect, our court system today is a "trial by lottery": anyone who is lucky enough to get even a single juror who is aware of jury nullification would be acquitted, while those who aren't so lucky get convicted for breaking unconstitutional or immoral laws. --75.60.15.160 (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Then there's the criticism that "a jury is a group of people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty"... --Jayron32 03:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That one juror aware of jury nullification would be best advised if he never used the term "nullification," because if another juror complained to the judge, he might be replaced by an alternate and the deliberation restarted, or a mistrial might result. The underlying justifications for jury nullification could be cited, with reference to the Peter Zenger case and the Fugitive Slave Law cases, which are taught in civics and American History. The worst thing the juror could possibly do would be to print out something from the internet and hand it to the other jurors as if it were an additional instruction. Any jurur can also "hang" a jury and prevent a guilty verdict, but again they can be replaced unless the "continue to deliberate" rather than just hunkering down and saying, "Nope, my mind is made up!"Edison (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that jury nullification is a good way to fight unjust laws. For example, in US states with legal medical marijuana, the federal government can still prosecute those who grow marijuana for the patients. Such a stupid law just screams for jury nullification. StuRat (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is Kupfermühlen Bay?

Several Wikipedia articles about German WW II U boats mention their being scuttled in Kupfermühlen Bay, but I can't find where that is. Can someone enlighten me? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Go to Google and enter [Kupfermühlen Bay] or [Kupfermühlen Bucht] and you should see many references. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Google maps cant seem to find it. Are we sure on the spelling? Googlemeister (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I did that, Bugs, and found nothing useful but more references to scuttled U boats. Googlemeister, that's the spelling that's used in the various U Boat articles. See German_Type_VII_submarine#Type_VIIA for example. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a Kupfermühle. It's German for "copper mill". I can't tell if it's near a bay. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I wonder if it's part of Flensburg Fjord. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Kupfermühlen Bay

Kupfermühlen Bay is a small inlet to the north of Flensburg, close to the Danish border. I've been trying to answer the above thread but couldn't because of endless edit conflicts. Try googleing it instead of searching the maps. DuncanHill (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Duncan. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Desecration of portraits in Iran and Islamic law

News stories say protesters in Iran are accused of desecrating portraits of Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini. Online dictionaries says that to "desecrate" is to violate the sacred character of an object. I have understood that Islam opposes the worship or veneration of an image of a person, and that mosaic designs were historically used in mosques (or the Dome of the Rock) as geometric decorations, rather than portraits, icon, or statues. so there should be no temptation to venerate an image of a person (or animal). When did it become acceptable to consider as "sacred" the portrait of a religious leader, given the historic iconoclasm of the religion? Is it possible to "desecrate" an image of someone who is merely respected and fondly remembered but not "sacred?" Is it acceptable among the Iranian religious leaders, but not among the Taliban of Afghanistan/Pakistan? Edison (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wahhabis are a lot stricter than Iranian Shi`ites in enforcing "aniconism" in religion -- the Persian miniature tradition was not at all afraid to produce quasi-devotional images depicting prominent Islamic figures, as long as certain conventions were adhered to (such as that the facial features of Muhammad generally could not be shown), etc. etc. -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, journalists are not above using some bit of hyperbole in describing an event, or extending the meaning of words beyond their original intent. So desecrate can mean simply "to damage or destroy in a disrespectful manner" just as a crusade can mean "a campaign against something undertaken with strong fervor". The fact that a news article described the destruction of a portrait as "desecration" does not mean EITHER that a) the journalist believe that the object in question was actually sacred or holy or that b) the person destroying the object believed that either. Its just "poetic lisence" with a word. That's all. --Jayron32 20:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Alamnews, in Iran, called it "sacrilege" defined by an online dictionary [14] as "outrageous violation of what is sacred" or "gross irreverence toward a hallowed (i.e., holy, consecrated, sacred, revered) person, place or thing." Edison (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As Jayron has already mentioned, it doesn't really matter what the dictionary says a word is supposed to mean. In this case they just mean "destruction". Adam Bishop (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

So there are no religious overtones, and the news would be just as likely to use the word sacrilege to describe the destruction of the portrait of any other respected public figure, such as the Oil Minister? 213.122.6.175 (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. Journalists! What do they know? Adam Bishop (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. I think Adam Bishop's point is a little simplified although I may get what he's trying to say. The destruction of potraits of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini is likely to be seen as far worse because he's viewed as a far more important figure. This doesn't have to mean he's worshipped per se. Sacrilege may be chosen to convey the strength of the insult that it's viewed as without necessarily conveying that it comes to a religious level. Also in terms of the Iranian news thing, remember cultural and language issues may come to play. It may not even occur to the writers that anyone is going to think they are worshipping Ruhollah Khomeini since to them that's automatically nonsense. I would agree that there is a very blurry line between religious or sacred worship and holding someone to an extremely high esteem especially when the people don't give a great deal of thought to how and why they feel so strongly about someone or something but of course it doesn't stop them at least thinking they high esteem or reveration is not in a religious manner. BTW, I think it's fairly obvious that desecrating is used in non religious contexts even in the US and other countries. Considering my earlier point, you might say the fuss in the US over desecrating flags reveals they're awfully close to worshipping the flag and I may agree with you but I suspect many of those who go ape shit over such things would vehemently disagree. I also doubt all the proponents of the Flag Desecration Amendment suggest that the flag is a holy thing. Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Athiests and Jehovah's Witnesses see the veneration of the American flag as coming to close to worship of it, and violating the prohibition against idol worship. See also [15] and [16] which agrees you can't "desecrate" something unless it is "sacred." See also Albrecht Gessler which discusses the legend of people in the 1300's being ordered to venerate the dictator's hat on a pole, and William Tells refusal. See also Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego's refusal to bow down before the statue of Nebuchadnezzar. Does a requirement to venerate a statue, hat or flag, or a prohibition against tearing up a photo or burning your flag make them "sacred" or idols? Edison (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

They're missing the point that it's not the U.S. flag itself that's sacred, but the souls of those who died defending what it stands for, namely us and our freedom. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

December 19

uk law.....a need to inccrease sentences.

I feel strongly that uk prison sentences are too weak. I wish to lobby for increased sentences. How do i go about this,who do I approach? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.209.162 (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be your Member of Parliament? Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the standard method to express your opinion of matters of government policy is to write to your MP. You can find their address here. Unless a lot of people write to their MPs about something like this, not much will happen, but you will probably get a personal reply from your MP. --Tango (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to do some research into how long average sentences actually are for certain crimes (be sure to look at how long people are actually serving, not just the minimum time set by the judge before there is a chance they could be let out). It's always good to check that you are arguing from a position of knowing the current situation, and I know many news sources in the UK report the minimum set by the judge as if this is the sentence that will be served. 86.176.191.243 (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to figure out how these prisoners are going to be housed, since overcrowding is already a major problem.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And indeed just how you are going to pay for it. DuncanHill (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And indeed if this serves any useful purpose at all, and if it does, if the resources spent to achieve it could achieve more if used differently. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, they've already come up with a solution for the overcrowding in UK jails. I am a product of this solution. You wouldn't want more like me, would you? No, I thought not.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't the USA invade and capture Canada?

Considering the history of man and war consisted of invading and conquering other people's territory, whether it was ethical or not, what is stopping USA from conquering Canada? Surely US would win easily, so why not? 192.12.88.10 (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

They tried and failed already. They learned their lesson! Adam Bishop (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The US has a fairly strong and friendly alliance with Canada. There is nothing that the US would gain by conquering Canada. NW (Talk) 03:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because someone can do something doesn't mean that they should. This holds true for countries as well. Think about the consequences. The US would be pissing off nearly every NATO nation and quite a few from the UN as well. They'd loose friends quickly! Thousands of people would die on both sides. And really, what would be gained? They have a strong relationship with one another. If the US is going to invade a neighbor, they should invade Mexico. There'd be a much smaller illegal immigrant problem and the border to the next two countries would be quite a bit smaller than the current US-Mexico border. Dismas|^(talk) 03:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Germans won easily against the Poles in 1939, but that didn't make it a good long-term strategic conquest for the country. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. doesn't invade Canada for the same reason people don't go punching random people in the face without provocation. Ok, SOME people do that, and we call them assholes. --Jayron32 03:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

After the War of 1812, the protection of Canada by the world's greatest superpower of the time, Britain, deterred any U.S. invasion until the 20th century. By that time, the United States had friendly relations with Canada and enough goodwill in Canada for profitable commercial access. Since the early 20th century, the United States would have had nothing to gain from invasion that it couldn't have through commerce, especially since the conclusion of NAFTA. On the contrary, the Unites States would have a great deal to lose from invasion by destroying the goodwill among Canadians that is the best safeguard of U.S. (elite) interests. Marco polo (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict x4) In addition to the excellent reasons of policy just stated: No one doubts that the U.S. would win in the end, especially given the relative sizes of the U.S. and Canadian Forces, but the cost to the U.S. would be incalculable. The military rules of thumb are that an invader needs a ratio of about 10 to 1 over the defender, and (from experience in the Third Balkan War and Iraq) about 1 occupier for every 30 hostile or indifferent inhabitants, i.e. about a million G.I.'s. It's hard to think of an incentive or a provocation, that couldn't be satisfied in some other way, which would justify the loss of life and wealth. And while the lowlands by the U.S. border would be relatively easy to take, the Canadian back-country, like Russia's, is physically hostile and essentially limitless. You could kiss goodbye to most of Alaska's perpetually-vulnerable oil and natural gas. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Who wants to face insurgents wielding hockey sticks and tossing curling stones, not to mention a potential disruptions to the US's vital beer supply ? StuRat (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there some menace based there? Is there something valuable there? Would the benefits of such aggression outweigh the goodwill lost? Edison (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Because Satan and Saddam would take over the world of course. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

(After the US President makes an emergency landing in Canada...)

Bush: "Canada, isn't that one of our northern states ?"

Aide: "No sir, we aren't scheduled to invade and annex Canada until 2010, sir." - Chilly Beach. StuRat (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I can think of several things Canada has that the U.S. wouldn't want, and would be stuck with if we invaded. Draft dodgers. The metric system. Socialism. Quebec. Canada might have an oil reserve, though, so stay tuned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

They also have better beer than we do, but if we pissed them off they might stop making it. So I suggest an invasion would be a bad idea. Antandrus (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? You guys drink our beer? I had no idea Americans liked, even. What brands to you drink? Canadian? Alexander Keiths?174.3.102.6 (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I see a number of LaBatt's cans on the side of my road while walking my dogs and every spring during Green Up Day. Dismas|^(talk) 06:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

While Labatt is the third most popular import beer in the U.S. - it does not rank in the top ten beers (Corona and Heineken do though). 75.41.110.200 (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to get involved, but are you out of your mind?! Canada has awful beer. I suppose if you compare Labats to BudLight we've got an even split, but American craft brews are stellar, and I know of few good Canadian craft brews. Disagree if you will, but name names, if you dare. Shadowjams (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You remind me of the Family Ties episode in which, to impress some girls, Alex P. Keaton tells them he is a fighter pilot on a mission to invade the Dominion of Canada in the morning. The irony is of course that Michael J. Fox is Canadian. So too William Shatner who plays Secret Service agent Jerry O'Connor in the 1980 film The Kidnapping of the President, who acts like a smart alec to all those in the RCMP, as if he only ever was a farmboy from Iowa ( or was he born in space as the recent movie said ) How fast they forget. Don't worry Canada, if those traitorous whigs try to have a go at you, your British brothers will unite - and probably run away. Actually, I think Iran is next, after Israel blows up its reactors. C.B.Lilly 11:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

¶ The only conceivable circumstance that might draw a foolish U.S. into a military expedition against Canada might be if Quebec declares independence and somehow stumbles into a shooting war over it. The Rest of Canada would be split into more than one piece, Albertans (like some Québécois) are always threatening to apply to join the U.S.A., some First Nations militants might see their chance, and it's unclear what kind of confusion would ensue. Perhaps the U.S. would want to rescue a tourist, aid worker, journalist, diplomat or spy (or kick out a Canadian one), or take strong measures with a flood of refugees. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the Reference Desk is not supposed to be a forum for speculation or debate, and though fun it's no doubt best left to the alternative historians. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

In the 1920s and 1930s, the US drew up plans to invade Canada, and Canada drew up plans to invade the US. Neither plan was ever carried out. See War Plan Red and Defence Scheme No. 1. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Then they'd just have a larger territory to administrate, full of trees and tax evaders. 213.122.6.175 (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Now, by mentioning the word tourist, you have gone and reminded me of the movie Canadian Bacon, where the late John Candy played a US sherriff, trying to rescue his girl from those up north. Again, another forgetful Canadian. I did not realise the film was not released until nearly two years after his death. He was good. The relationship Canada has with its smaller in area but larger in population neighbour is similar to that between us in New Zealand and those over there in Australia. Too many of us have become rats leaving a sinking ship, to go to where it is too hot, and there are snakes. None here, and we don't want them. If I recall, Michael Jackson was not allowed in here once because he wanted to bring his. He did come some other time. I have that many aunts uncles and cousins over there, I cannot count them all. And my mother tells us one of her grandmothers was from over there, so I am one eighth ocker. Oy oy oy. I admire their sporting prowess. We get jealous over here, but it is because we have adopted that everyone wins and gets a prize mentality, which no one cared about when I was little. No one bothered to spare our feelings then if we were no good at sport - it was just motivation to get better, rather than allow us to be coddled. We need their competitive, non apologetic spirit. I suspect, Canadians may get jealous of Americans also, but why bother ? Who ever we are, let us embrace it, be proud, and do all we can, which does not include invading each other. I promise. If foreign troops ever dare set foot on New Zealand soil, and sure we may get overrun and occupied, but I will kill as many of them as I can until they put me in front of a firing squad, before I accept any foreign ruler. Irony is, most of our Prime Ministers have been English, and one of our best, Michael Joseph Savage ( whom my grandfather, who was in the Napier Earthquake, probably voted for ), was Australian. But if our rulers do not do us the courtesy to be democratically elected, they may consider themselves enemies of the Dominion of New Zealand. After all, the Bible does say there is a time for war. It's in Ecclesiastes - the Byrds turn turn turned it. The Russian. C.B.Lilly 14:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

In the Harry Turtledove Timeline-191 books, the US does invade and conquer Canada, grants independence to Quebec as a puppet state, but has to live with an insurgency for many, many years. Utah is also pretty much a lost cause, as well. Woogee (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That last part may be true anyway. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Peru's my question

Specifically, why do they wear such an eclectic variety of hats there ? This doesn't seem to be the case in adjacent South American nations, so what's different about Peru ? If the answer is "tradition", then how did this tradition start ? StuRat (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of the hats you have on mind? Alpaca hats originate from the Incans, and peru occupies much of the Incan homeland.174.3.102.6 (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The "chullo hat" seems to be the most common, but I've seen many other types of hats there, too, like this one: [17] and this one: [18], and this one: [19], and this one: [20] (a fedora ?), and this one: [21] (a bowler hat ?), and this one: [22], and this one: [23], and these 3: [24], and this one: [25], and this one: [26], and this one: [27], and these: [28], and this one: [29], and this one: [30], and these: [31], and this one: [32], and this one: [33], and this one: [34], and this one: [35], and this one: [36]. StuRat (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

They don't have an eclectic variety of hats in the U.S.? --Jayron32 05:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Just taking American men for an example, I don't really ever see older men in anything but either baseball caps or golf caps. In the cities you may see some youths wearing do-rags. The only other hat I see on men on any sort of regular basis is just a knitted skull cap of sorts in the winter. So, no, I don't see any evidence of an eclectic variety in the US. Dismas|^(talk) 06:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely every man in Texas walks around with a Stetson on, or has tv weaved an elaborate web of lies? ny156uk (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if we include the cowboy hat and throw in the do-rag, that's four. And to me, that's not a lot of variety. I never see any fedoras anymore. Dismas|^(talk) 10:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, Dismas, you don't live in a U.S. college town, somewhere with serious cold winter, attend the opera (or a African American church on Easter) 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Pork pie hat has become popular among singers in the US, particularly Justin Timberlake. Woogee (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If he'd been wearing one in that Super Bowl halftime show, he could have used it to cover Janet Jackson a little more quickly than she covered herself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Product

What is the short infomercial (infomercials are long, but such advertisements for the slap chop, sham-wow, etc. are about a min and half long, while infomercials are about a hour long) that airs before snuggie?

Usually products advertised this way come and go: these advertisements might run for a few months, then the ads stop. Which product is this?174.3.102.6 (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to provide some context here. Where in the world are you? Which channel or network are you talking about? What is snuggie? What time of day do you usually see these?/Coffeeshivers (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It speaks well for you that you are "snuggie" illiterate. The "Snuggie" is a brand-name for a ubiquitously advertised blanket-with-sleeves that is worn instead of a robe - but which opens in the back, not the front. The advertisements (on U.S. cable-TV, at least) are fairly cheesy. I see we have a redirect for it, which I linked. But for the original questioner, I don't think the commercials air in general in any particular order, though an individual station may have such an order. But if we assume it's for a similary cheesy product, one can suggest: Shamwow!, Slap Chop, Chia pet. - Nunh-huh 12:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I assumed it was the nickname of some show or series. Since the OP mentions sham-wow and slap chop as examples of the type of short informercial, I guess none of those are the answer. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

They're selling Snuggies for dogs, now. Woogee (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Southeast Asians in India

How many southeast asians such as Burmese(Bamar people), Thai, Cambodian, Vietnamese and others are living in India? Which Indian regions are they living in? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Actuarial data determination

In general, how do they begin to say what a finger, arm, ear, etc., is worth? 71.161.42.92 (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean for compensation for losing a finger, etc., due to someone's negligence? That's not really an actuarial decision. It's made by the legal profession. I don't know how lawyers work these things out - it's pretty arbitrary, I think. --Tango (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

See Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and this document for the position in the UK. Tevildo (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Asking someone how much they'd want for an arm would likely generate a different value than what someone would pay to not lose an arm. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerning an East German flag designed to be hung vertically

The flag in question.

To the right is a photograph of an East German flag that I am curious about. I know from the person I received it from that it is designed to be hung vertically, as opposed to being flown horizontally like a "typical" flag. However, that's about all I know. Why I am most curious about it is that I've been searching the web looking for photographs of other vertical East German flags, but I cannot find anything that looks like it. Is it rare? If not, is there any reason why I can't find photos of it online? Does it have a special name that the keywords "East German vertical flag" just won't find? Also, I'm curious about why it is gold-red-black from left to right, as opposed to black-red-gold as current German flags are when they are hung vertically (based on information from this webpage). I would much appreciate any answers anyone is able to provide. Thanks!

TFCforever (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I'd love to create an SVG graphic version of the flag, like the standardized flag graphics used across Wikimedia projects, for example in "flagicons". Can this flag be faithfully represented by taking the "standard" East German flag and rotating the coat of arms 90 degrees, or is it more complex than that? Thanks again.

It's a "hanging" flag or vertical "banner", meant to be draped along the outside walls of buildings, etc. For an analogous flag, see File:Flag of Germany (Hanging state flag).svg. It wouldn't be too difficult to make an SVG of it, based on File:Flag_of_East_Germany.svg and File:Flag of Germany (Hanging state flag).svg... AnonMoos (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm working on an SVG file right now. TFCforever (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstract Expressionism cartoon

Some years ago, I remember seeing a cartoon that extolled the virtues of Abstract expressionism. The first panel depicted a man (dressed in typical 1940's clothing) pointing to an abstract painting, with the caption "Ha ha! What does this represent?" In the second panel, the painting angrily points back at the man, with the caption "What do you represent?" My questions are - who drew this cartoon (I _think_ it _might_ have been Rothko, but I may very well be wrong), where did it first appear, and - most importantly - is it available on-line anywhere? Tevildo (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The cartoon is by Ad Reinhardt, and I found a copy here. DOGRIGGR (deflea) 00:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Lethal injection

Pancuronium bromide is one of the most horrible and inhumane poisons in existence, so doesn't its use in lethal injection make lethal injection unconstitutional? --70.247.248.43 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If used on a conscious entity, you'd have a point, but that is not the case in executions. It's the supreme court that decides what's constitutional and what isn't; in the U.S., they have thus far not found the use of that drug in execution unconstitutional. - Nunh-huh 01:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear that it is "most horrible and inhumane poisons in existence"—it's a paralyzing agent with no hypnotic effects, so if you have that, AND THEN something awful, and you aren't made unconscious first with something else, then you can feel a lot of pain. But it isn't administered by itself—it is part of a "drug cocktail" designed, ideally, to knock you out and kill you without you feeling anything. The Supreme Court has ruled this does not violate the 8th Amendment when done "correctly." In the same ruling, though, they note that if a state continues to use potentially problematic means of killing inmates without sufficient justification in the face of feasible alternatives, that this might be considered an 8th Amendment violation. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Being injected with pancuronium bromide causes complete paralysis without any anesthetic effect, so the victim suffers a slow and painful death by asphyxiation. --70.247.248.43 (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite a lot of visceral organ surgeries in the US are performed under a form of paralytic, usually rocuronium. The patients are unconscious by the time it is dripped into the IV line, though. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That assumes that the anesthetic is properly administered, which is almost certain in the case of surgery but very unlikely in the case of lethal injection due to the AMA's ban on physicians taking part in capital punishment in any way. --70.247.248.43 (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, how do the executioners obtain the lethal drugs, since they're controlled substances requiring a prescription written by a licensed doctor, and the AMA prohibits doctors from prescribing drugs for lethal injection? From lethal injection:

The AMA Code of ethics specifically prohibits prescription by a doctor of the drugs for lethal injection. Ethical and legal constraints forbid pharmacists dispensing a drug without a valid prescription. A valid prescription can only be written by a doctor with an established relationship to the patient, with the patient's consent, for the benefit of the patient, and in the area of the doctor's expertise, among other requirements.

--70.247.248.43 (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, there are legal exceptions made for executions. And we could always go back to hanging, if necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

But where in the Constitution is the government given the power to purchase controlled substances without the necessary documents/permits/etc. (a prescription, in this case)? --70.247.248.43 (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. Constitution does not discuss prescription drugs or controlled substances. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

So therefore, the government doesn't have any special privilege in obtaining prescription drugs, so they must go through the normal route. --70.247.248.43 (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite the contrary: The government makes the laws controlling substances, so presumably they make special arrangements for the lethal injection drugs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

But do they currently have those laws on the books right now? If so, which law specifically allows them to obtain these drugs in blatant disregard of necessary procedure for the sole purpose of torturing often-innocent victims to death? --70.247.248.43 (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Christiane Wilhelmine Luise of Solms-Roedelheim and Assenheim

Does any know the exact birth date and month of Christiane Wilhelmine Luise of Solms-Roedelheim and Assenheim, the wife of Carl Friedrich Wilhelm, 1st Prince of Leiningen? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

She was born 24 April 1736 at Rödelheim. - Nunh-huh 01:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)