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

August 11

Jeremy Bamber

The whole world knows Jeremy Bamber is innocent and he will be released, but how can UK repay him for 25 years of his life that he has lost? Is there a similiar case anywhere in the world, an innocent man spending 25 years in jail for the murder he didnt commit? And what does the state do to compensate for the lost years? Apology, money or both? Thanks --92.244.158.225 (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Steven Truscott (48 years in prison from conviction to acquittal), it was both. The payment was 6.5 million dollars (Canadian). Bielle (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt the "whole world knows Jeremy Bamber is innocent". While Jeremy Bamber has always claimed he is innocent, he has twice lost appeals, most recently in 2009. That said, there is some suggestion of new evidence that could lead to another appeal - and that is a long, long way from everyone knowing he is innocent. Astronaut (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And an answer to your question about compensation: In the UK, Stefan Kiszko had his murder conviction overturned after spending 16 years in prison. The Home Office told him "he would receive £500,000 in compensation for the years he spent in prison". Astronaut (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Was that before or after hefty deductions for board and lodging? (Which, by the way, the Home Office has levied or attempted to levy in similar cases!) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

When the news broke yesterday tht Sion Jenkins had his compensation claim refused for 6 years of false imprisonment, the reason given was that the criteria was that it must have been proven in court that he did not commit the member. As he was finally acquitted because two juries could not agree on his guilt, he did not meet the criterion and so his claim was refused. Bamber would, unless evidence proving his innocence emerges in the meantime, therefore not be entitled to any form of compensation. See this report.--TammyMoet (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Does the whole world know that O. J. Simpson is innocent? Is there a person in the USA that thinks so? MacOfJesus (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It all depends if he is "innocent" or "not guilty" which are quite different beasts. In criminal law (in the UK and Commonwealth, at least) the burden of proof in a criminal trial lies on the prosecution's side: they must prove someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If there is doubt in the case, then someone should be deemed 'not guilty' (which, as noted above, is not at all the same as innocent); if reasons for doubt occur after conviction, this could result in the verdict being overturned and the person being released from prison, or possibly tried again Neither course automatically provides exoneration (ie. declaration of innocence). Since compensation is generally tied to innocence, then the burden of proof now shifts to the defence, who must prove that the individual in question IS innocent. Gwinva (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Gwinva, yours is the answer the OP is looking for, I think. My answer was merely to throw light on the reasonableness of the question. MacOfJesus (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Perpetual virginity of Mary

The "it's known that Mary never had sex" statement in the Ockham's razor discussion above led me to read the Perpetual virginity of Mary article which mentions her virginity "before, during and after giving birth". Why would it be necessary to consider the "during birth" part? Has it ever been a common practice for women in labor to engage in sex? Prostaglandin, which is used to induce childbirth, is present in seminal fluid. -- 119.31.121.87 (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It's most likely rhetoric to emphasize the extent of her alleged virginity. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that "during birth" was added by a devout editor who might have pondered objections to the notion of a virgin giving birth. (Whatever the circumstances of Mary's labor and deliver, I'm pretty sure no one at Bethlehem Stable and Gynecological Hospital was administering prostaglandin. Fructose, also a component of seminal fluid, may have been around somewhere, though.) You could always boldly rework the article. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A rather crude way of explaining it is that little baby Jesus didn't break Mary's hymen on the way out. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If Mary's miraculous hymen survived giving birth then it could well have survived intercourse. -- 110.49.193.42 (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Where did this idea come from that Mary was a virgin forever? She produced a half-brother for Jesus, for one thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's a great big article linked up there which might tell you all about that! Adam Bishop (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's based on the notion that sex is evil, therefore Mary remained a virgin. Never mind that there's nothing in the Bible to support those crazy theories. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, there is. Of course, there is also material supporting the opposite. And if you then get to chose your sequence of mistranslations from Sumerian to ancient Hebrew to Aramaic to Koine Greek to Vulgar Latin to English, you can support whatever you like. The whole virginity story first appeared in the Greek, of course, when someone translated "girl" with "virgin". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the Prophets were originally written in Sumerian? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No, but I suggest that parts of the Pentateuch go back to to Sumerian roots. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Contradictions? Shazam! Well, the fact He had brothers pretty well wipes out the idea, even though the sex-hating Catholics wanted to keep her "pure" forever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't the girl/virgin mistranslation from Hebrew? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes -- (עלמה) almah means maiden, while (בתולה) betulah means virgin. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Hebrew words "בְּתוּלָה" ("betulah") and "עַלְמָה" ("almah") and the Greek word "παρθενος" ("parthenos") are discussed at Isaiah 7:14. See also http://www.multilingualbible.com/isaiah/7-14.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Start with the understanding that the hymen has nothing to do with medical virginity. Proceed from there. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Extreme Perpetual Virginity of Mary was attested (per [some Catholic sources) by a midwife who witnessed that even as Jesus was being delivered, Mary's hymen retained only a tiny opening, so it must have been similar to expanding foam sealant coming out of an aerosol can. Or it might have been "Birth By Teleportation" or a "Magical C Section." Edison (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Religionists are perfectly willing to cite non-canonical sources when it suits their purpose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

no surprise here 200.144.37.3 (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

? Catholics have never claimed to be sola scriptura: they hold that Holy Tradition is just as valid as the Bible, given that Christianity predates the Bible. When discussing a Catholic belief, if seems odd to expect them to only consider the Protestant canon as canonical. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Their retrofitting of Mary as being forever a virgin directly relates to their hatred of sex. They decided to keep her in a perpetual chastity belt, and they cherry-picked passages from scripture and elsewhere to support that theory, and ignored anything that contradicted it - including logic and reason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

But that raises further questions: Where did this hatred of sex come from? Was there a pre-existing tradition of hatred of sex? It seems quite unnatural to hate something that is both intensely pleasurable and necessary for the continuation of the species. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It reflects a kind of quasi-"Gnostic" asceticism/dualism which was kind of "in the air" ca. 200 A.D., and widely influential on a number of differing religious movements and/or philosophical schools (which otherwise really didn't have much in common) in the middle east / Mediterranean region during that period. The various versions of Gnosticism ended up having no real influence on the actual theological doctrines of "mainstream" or traditionally-orthodox Christianity -- but Gnosticism or quasi-Gnosticism did have an impact on the attitudes of a number of early church fathers, who felt that marriage was a poor second-best to remaining a virgin, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Does it not go back further? After all, 1 Corinthians 7 has Paul discussing marriage as a necessary evil, given that people cannot control their sexual urges. He says that it would be better if everyone could be celibate, but that not everyone has the gift for it, so it's better that they get married! That's first century, and our article says it appears in the earliest canons, so it isn't even just a case of being included later when the mood matched. Or are you specifically referring to perpetual virginity of Mary? 82.24.248.137 (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Paul did not discuss marriage as a necessary evil, but he portrayed it as an extra challenge for Christians living in the current world. (1 Corinthians 7:29–35)—Wavelength (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems quite unnatural to hate something that is both intensely pleasurable and necessary for the continuation of the species. --That's quite a leap; preventing STD transmission and preventing overpopulation (given the scarcity of food) are two particularly righteous causes, especially during a time when humanity was so fragile. There are a lot of *very* practical downsides to sex. I would bet there is a PHD paper or two on the fitness of a society of prudes vs those that, ah, do "what comes naturally"... --144.191.148.3 (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The downside of "no sex", on the other side, is that humanity dies out within one generation. That may not be that bad an idea, but I find the result somewhat boring. Of course, for early apocalyptic Christianity, that was not a problem - indeed, if you look at Paul's letters, you can see him flailing at an explanation why the apocalypse still has not happened, and what to do with granny, who died yesterday, thus just about missing the kingdom to come ("any second now, or maybe tomorrow, but no later than the day after that"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You can continue to say that (over and over again), but it doesn't change the fact that Catholic canon is broader than Protestant canon, and so this is a belief supported by (Catholic) canon. And since when were logic and reason supposed to dictate people's beliefs in an all-powerful God and his fully-human, fully-God son who rose from the dead? 82.24.248.137 (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The Catholic canon does not include any more 'New Testament' texts than the Protestant/Reformed canon. The texts cited above with regard to Our Lady's virginity are regarded as non-canonical even by Catholics; but just because a thing is non-canonical does not mean it is treated as false. Mind you, I'd always understood reason to be a teaching principle of the Church, and the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary seems contrary to reason, as well as to the claims of the evangelists and the early church that Jesus had natural siblings - James the Just, not least. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't contain any more 'New Testament' texts, but the Biblical canon is not the only source of canonical 'truth' in Catholicism: there is Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. Mixed up in this are the writings of the Church Fathers and other sacred texts that found their way into the liturgy: things like the Gloria. In short, there are more canonical texts in Catholicism than just the Bible, and there is more canon than just canonical texts. If you want to understand that point of view, you could look at this page from the Catechism: 82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence." 86.164.66.83 (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Bible does not promote hatred of sex, but it speaks of it respectfully. (http://www.multilingualbible.com/proverbs/5-18.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/proverbs/5-19.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/proverbs/5-20.htm)

—Wavelength (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus had at least six siblings (four brothers and two sisters).—http://www.multilingualbible.com/matthew/13-55.htm and http://www.multilingualbible.com/mark/6-3.htm and Mark 3:31–35—Wavelength (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

To my mind, the whole "Virgin/pure maiden" thing is a blending of Roman mythology into the Christian rhetoric. there are numerous cases of Greek/Roman gods impregnating women to produce god-like offspring, and in the Roman mindset gods only hankered after the pure and beautiful maidens. In other words, Jesus said something that his followers interpreted to mean he was the son of god, 'son of god' to the romans meant literal procreation, and literal procreation carried all sorts of presumptions about whom a god would procreate with. but what do I know. --Ludwigs2 00:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Something like Netflix for books

Is there a site where one can enter authors and books he likes, and the site then recommends more authors and books the reader will likely enjoy, like Netflix does for movies, or like a kindly and knowledgeable librarian or bookseller might do? I seem to recall hearing of some site like "Visual library" or Virtual librarian" but could not find it via Google. Thanks. Edison (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Amazon.com does that. You just click on books and add them to your shopping cart and it recommends other books that purchasers of the one you chose have also ordered. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

LibraryThing does that too. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Amazon does this but not very well. When buying books for my brother, from his own wishlist, Amazon will then recommend books for me based on what I bought for him. I haven't bothered looking at their recommendations in a while but they also used to recommend other books to me because I simply looked at the description of an initial book. Dismas|^(talk) 04:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Amazon is not unique with this problem. I've studied a lot of recommender systems. They tend to use singular value decomposition (SVD) to group users and products into similarity groups. Then, you are recommended products that are highly similar to products you bought (or viewed) as well as products users who are similar to you bought (or viewed). The biggest problem with SVD is that it has absolutely no sense of order. So, you purchase something like the 6th book in a series, it will suggest the first 5 books - even though most people won't purchase the 6th book without already having read the first 5 books. The reason they continue to use SVD is because the other common option is the hidden Markov model. That has a sense of order and is far more accurate. For order and accuracy, you end up trading a fast SVD calculation for an extremely time-consuming Markov model construction and traversal. So... what does Netflix use that makes it so good? According to their published work and the Netflix prize papers, they are using SVD and don't worry about order since a rather small percentage of movies need to be seen in order. -- kainaw™ 04:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a side note: Amazon allows you to exclude items you bought from being used for suggestions, and it allows you to indicate items you already own. It does, however, do a lousy job of distinguishing good bad science fiction from bad bad science fiction ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you actually buy The Eye of Argon from Amazon? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course! Amazon is, like, the Wikipedia of commerce. Paul (Stansifer) 19:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ranked 741,584th in the Amazon Bestseller List, I notice. I'm astonished it's that popular. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

But paying attention to order can cause overfitting in the cases (most of them) where order isn't relevant. Also, if I remember correctly from the one time that I've done this kind of stuff, SVD doesn't do clustering at all: it simplifies the huge lots-of-people-by-lots-of-books matrix into a lots-of-people-by-a-few-abstract-factors matrix so the clusters are easier to pick out (and clustering runs faster). Paul (Stansifer) 19:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in that SVD is not itself used for clustering. They tend to use something like vector cosine to measure similarity. SVD makes the vector cosine calculation much faster and covers missing data. -- kainaw™ 20:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

We have Online general-interest book databases... AnonMoos (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not quite it,but I find it useful for recommendations.http://www.shelfari.com/..hotclaws 16:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You could also ask a Librarian. Our local library website has links to "What should I read next?" type pages that have books grouped together by author and genre as well as by actual people who have read the books listed and know if they are similar or not.63.146.74.132 (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Did Hiltler do anything good?

Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime are rightly reviled for the murder of the Jews, their agressive warmongering and bestial treatment of subject peoples. However, did they do anything which could reasonably be regarded as good or worthwhile? For example, they were ahead of their time in promoting animal rights, for which legislation was introduced shortly after they came to power. Many people these days would see that as a positive - though little enough to set against the massive negatives, to be sure. Are there any other examples of good or worthwhile policy. I am not suggesting that any such policies would in any way alleviate or counterbalance the dreadful inhumanity of the regime but I am interested in peoples' opinion as to whether they were irredeemably 100% evil or whether there was some miniscule part of their makup which could be said to be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossdeep (talk • contribs) 01:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to do a project for Social Studies class in Grade 10 on exactly this. I found that it was ultimately not worth the hassle of defending myself against accusations any perceived sympathy for Hitler or the Nazis, given their rather obvious and overwhelming evil-ness. That said, see volkswagen and the autobahns. I personally believe that the only conceivable reason that they accomplished anything that could be remotely considered good was only because they were in government and had to do something to gain support of the German people in general at the time, and hating Jews and Catholics wasn't enough initially. So even the "good stuff" was done to serve their evil purposes. Aaronite (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

They built a nice stadium which is still in use. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Along with the Autobahns they built rest stops along the way, just like we still have on big highways now. They had some nice architecture courtesy Albert Speer, although Speer was fond of using Jewish slave labour. Ah well. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The research behind the V-2 rocket was the basis of basically all 20th century rocket technology, which enabled both the US and USSR space programs. Staecker (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If mere technological advances count, the Messerschmitt Me 262 was the first operational jet fighter, and it was pretty effective, too. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of things that happened in Germany during the Hitler regime, that have had some benefit. Staecker notes the rocket technology. Methadone also came out of German research around 1937, originally as an analgesic. Its principal use in North America until recently, however, has been in drug addiction treatments. Whether the political regime can take credit is a matter for those more knowledgeable than I am. Bielle (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, unemployment was extremely low during Nazi rule. Dismas|^(talk) 04:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but on the whole the Nazi economy was not sound. They bankrupted the country in ten years, but the war tends to obscure that. They were basically financing their lavish public spending through conquest. It could not have gone on much longer. But it did buy them popularity.--Rallette (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, he killed himself. A lot of people consider that a good thing. Astronaut (talk) 07:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Unemployment was low because he created projects like building autobahns in order to employ people. They weren't particularly good jobs (in terms of pay and conditions - a lot of people would have rather stayed unemployed, but weren't allowed), but from an economics point of view it was certainly better than the people being unproductive. Hitler's other method of reducing unemployment wasn't so admirable, though: he crossed all the Jews off the list and threw those Jews that were working out of their jobs (and, towards the end, killed them) and gave them to non-Jewish Germans. --Tango (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything Hitler did was good for Germany with the single exception of killing/interning etc people, where killing is to include his warfare in attempting to expand Germany. The German people who were not on Hitler's shit list never had it so good, before or in all the time since. His fatal flaw was that he was not ecumenical; firstly, he did not include the whole of his population within his vision, instead wishing to exterminate some. and secondly, he did not expand his region with oration and a talented interpreter, but by force. Germany could have been the leader and creator of the European Union nigh on seventy years ago. 92.230.232.58 (talk) Trace that IP. 92.230.232.58 (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, lavish public spending that bankrupted the country, financed by looting neighbouring countries and jews. It's easy to daydream that if not for the war, it could have been just sweet. Not so. If not for the early successes in the war, Germany would have had to shut down the Volks-welfare-state even sooner, for simple lack of cash. There are many people with fond memories of those happy days, but it could not last. The Nazis were a bunch of gangsters with a gangster's narrow and superficial understanding of economic matters.--Rallette (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, such happy, golden days! But what a price was paid, and is still being paid. It was not a good deal. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that "The German people who were not on Hitler's shit list never had it so good". He instituted a totalitarian one-party state ripe with neighbour spying on neighbours, informers and an over-all demand for 100% loyalty to the state no matter what. The average German would experience this as more of a nuisance that an advantage, but of course by then it was too late to go back. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

all right, you guys have me. I just posted that because I, too, see that some people have fond memories of that time (I'm just 29 and an American myself, living in Bavaria), and I wanted to know if that was a reasonable idea. Your responses prove that it isn't. Thanks, especially Rallette. 92.230.232.58 (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw a book recently that suggested the Nazis were ahead of the curve on cancer research, but I have no way of knowing if this is true. GreatManTheory (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

He organized the first antismoking campaign: Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. German soldiers and civilians were discouraged from smoking, while the US sent large supplies of ciggies to the soldiers to get them hooked while they were young and in a stressful situation. Edison (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

He also made the trains to the death camps run on time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Technically it was Adolf Eichmann who did that.--Saddhiyama (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Making the trains run on time was typically credited to Mussolini, but some amiable drudge long before Wikipedia or the internet checked actual paper records of train arrivals in Il Duce's Italy and found that his record was no improvement on the previous administration's. Eventually allied bombers made the trains run late or not at all (not soon enough, sadly, for many bound for the death camps). When the European Economic Community recently set up a system of chartered jumbo jets to hop from EUC country to country picking up captured illegal immigrants and delivering them back to their third world countries, ironically they put Germany in charge of organizing the transportation. Presumably they put the British in charge of policing and the French in charge of meals. Edison (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Unfortunately, as opposed to passenger trains, in Germany the trains to the extermination camps ran pretty much on schedual right up to the very end. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In WW1 and WW2, German submarines were excellent and served as a model for the next generation of non-German subs. Germany also made progress in television broadcasting during WW2. Germany developed high fidelity magnetic tape recording during WW2, appropriated and widely used worldwide after the war. Edison (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Nazis had all sorts of nice qualities. They were pro-technology. They were pro-animal. They were environmentalists, and lovers of classical arts. They were anti-cigarette, pro-public health. Unfortunately nearly every one of these qualities came with a dark side. They were anti-science when it didn't conform to "German" standards (and when it wasn't done by "true" Germans), and many of their great technological advances were done in the service of their conquest plans. They considered dogs to have more dignity than most sub-groups of humans. They managed human populations with the same fervor that they managed insect populations — even with the same chemicals. They loved certain arts and persecuted those which didn't fit their ideological stripes. Their public health zeal was applied equally to genetic cleansing. So, sure, there were some good things, I suppose. But nearly every one of them came with some sort of horror. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It is valid to point out that without A. Hitler none of us (well, those who are less than 65 or so) would be alive. History would have followed a different course, our parents may not have met, there would have been a different sperm coming first, etc. For all practical purposes the vast majority of Europeans, US Americans, Japanese, etc owe their existence to the late Führer. The thought seems rather revolting. If you consider it to be "good" is a personal evaluation. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe we do owe everything to Hitler, but fundamentally no more so than to Chaos Butterfly. Someone, and I forget who, once pointed out that people do indeed have a curious tendency to feel somehow glad history turned out the way it did. History before them, that is, not of course their own lives.--Rallette (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hitler kept out communism. It is well known there were some sympathies for Hitler in Britain during the early years (certainly not for the Holocaust) mainly for this reason. I've got a copy of The Times from November 11, 1917, echoing this message: "Red Flag Flies Over Berlin" (worries of a Russian-style takeover). Of course, it's a matter of opinion whether first-stage commumism is a good thing or not, but I think it would be fair to say that the majority of people in the west see keeping out communism as a good thing. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 09:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Not very effectively. When he came to power, there was one communist State; after the war he launched, there were ten - including the one in Germany. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

1) 'Communist state' is a bit of a misnomer, 2) there were two established socialist states by the time the war was initiated (USSR & Mongolia). --Soman (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly the single most embarrassing discussion that I have ever come across anywhere in Wikipedia. Have you guys ever thought for a second about the intention that may lie behind this question? Nazi Germany was a brutal and inhumane totalitarian regime and everything that anyone has had the naivety to call "good qualities" of the Nazis has to do with the efficiency of planned action that is possible in a totalitarian regime. Are you tired of living in a democracy? --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Only the Sith deal in absolutes ;) Pretending that absolutely everything about everything done by a given government in a given country was evil, helps nobody. We need to be able to talk about it as a system made up of people, many of them idealistic, which had among its goals many that sounded noble or sensible to people at the time. Pretending that there was nothing good there at all, or that it was just about evil people doing evil things, renders it inhuman and impossible to learn from. It encourages the view that we would never be caught up in such a thing, we would never let such things happen, that it was a unique aberration. And that is dangerous. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything that was mentioned as being "good" under the Nazis could have and has happened under democratic governments (pro-technology, pro-environment, "lovers of classical arts", oh dear). In connection with the Nazis these things are simply unremarkable and searching for "good" aspects about them is a futile exercise. In fact, asking such a question all too often simply promotes a hidden agenda (before accusing the original poster of an agenda I'll just stick with "naive"). I have occasionally that often enough: "...but they built the autobahn." So what? Doesn't take a f***ing Nazi to build an autobahn. The Nazis obviously had an appeal to people in the distress of the economic crisis of the early thirties, but that does not mean that any part of their politics really was "good". In fact, their rise to power had more to do with the complete failure of the democratic politicians of the late Weimar Republic than even the Nazis' appeal for the electorate (they never obtained an absolute majority in a national election). --Wrongfilter (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone claimed that any of the 'good' things mentioned could only have happened under the Nazis? Everything said above has been carefully swathed in 'but the downside was...'/'but obviously this doesn't count for much against...'/'but this was heavily biased by...' etc. You are looking at the word good as meaning morally good, when almost none of the answers above have done so. For example, advances in submarine and rocket technology are 'good' from the point of view of advancing technology, but do not have a moral value. Try rereading the answers above, bearing in mind that good has other meanings. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Like most forms of state socialism, the Nazis started out on the right foot and rapidly went wrong. In a matter of a few years (prior to the war) the Nazis brought Germany from a state of desperate economic collapse back to a 'world power' status. as time went on, however, the inner circle became increasingly detached from the public, power-hungry, and paranoid. The Nazi experience is actually very typical - if you look you can see the same pattern repeated in countless banana republics and 'president-for-life' totalitarianisms over the 20th century. the only difference is that Germany was not a third-world nation but a major European power, and the country had the informational and technological resources to indulge their paranoid delusions on a scale tin-pot groups like Iraqi Ba'ath party or the Khmer Rouge couldn't dream of. Even Russia under Stalin was a backwater by comparison.

Hitler was just a politician, who probably started out (like most politicians) as a charismatic jerk. While I expect he deserves every vilification that he gets, I also suspect that after a certain point in time he was no longer in control. that's also typical of state socialisms - they encourage an ambiguity about authority which makes it impossible to trace 'bad acts' back to policy makers (think Abu Graib), but also makes it impossible for policy makers to have the kind of information or clear authority chains they would need to control behavior at lower echelons. --Ludwigs2 00:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I would seriously dispute your premises. There is pretty much nothing in common between e.g. early Nazism and the early Soviet Union or Cuba. The last two could be conveniently grouped as "state socialism" (although that is clearly a matter of debate), but extending the group to include the Nazis makes it completely meaningless. If all you're talking about is achieving power, you could claim that the Nazis started off on the right foot, but beyond that, their fevered anti-semitism (and anti-many other things) was already obvious - the Stab-in-the-back legend was a core part of their ideology. Within a month of Hitler's appointment as Chancellor, they started the Reichstag Fire. Finally, was Hitler really not in control? Sure, complete and unchallenged control is unattainable, but he championed the scorched earth policy of the final days of the Reich - still taking the lead on policy. Nazism was exceptional; there were certainly some achievements (as discussed by other posters), and there were similarities with regimes elsewhere, but the differences with a group like the Iraqi Ba'athist, awful as they were, are far greater than you claim. Warofdreams talk 17:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

England's National Day?

What is the English equivalent of the American Independence Day in terms of celebration? I was told by an English friend of mine that St. George's Day is the official one but that it's not really celebrated. Rather the Last Night of the Proms is the most nationalist celebration atmosphere he could think of. Is this really the case or is there a holiday I'm unaware of? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, as an Englishman born and bred, St. George's day is celebrated a little, but not very much. In terms of regular occasions, the Last Night of the Proms is certainly a very patriotic (I wouldn't say "nationalist", per se) event for those there / who watch and listen to it; equally one could argue that there are similar outbursts at Royal events (jubilees, deaths, coronations), some events related to the military, and England football matches. But in terms of regular patriotic days we are a little lacking in my experience. (I'm fairly young, it may be that I've simply forgotten / never noticed other such outpourings.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that Americans tend to associate fireworks with the Fourth of July, it's also worth noting that our pyrotechnic counterpart is the Fifth of November. It's not equivalent in any other way, however. 87.112.158.100 (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, "Bonfire Night". To clarify for the benefit of those unfamiliar with the event, it doesn't carry (in my experience, again) any patriotic overtones, even though it sounds (from the article) like it might. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 22:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I'm astonished that our article on Guy Fawkes Night does not mention its relationship to the old pagan ceremony of Samhain, held around the same time of year, which long predates 1605. The supposed difference of a few days between the two is easily accounted by past calendar changes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And neither does the article about Samhain mention such a link. Possibly this is because Samhain is Hallowe'en, not Guy Fawkes night. Or are you suggesting that Fawkes and his co-conspirators attempted to blow up Parliament in order to celebrate a pagan festival? 87.112.158.100 (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Several pre/non-Christian cultures had/have a celebration or ceremony around this time of year involving fireworks or other manifestations of light, perhaps because of the approaching darkest season of the year. The assumption in neo-Pagan circles (Heh!) is that with Samhain and related folk celebrations suppressed, the adjacent 5th of November commemoration provided an agreeable emotional substitute, though it has no direct doctrinal connection. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No "national" celebration day, as such, exists. There is no equivalent - perhaps because England never had to fight to acquire its independence from anyone, or to overthrow a dictatorial monarchy or regime. The relationships between "English nationalism" (such as it is), the other parts of the UK, and "Britishness", are hugely complex matters (and, incidentally, the subject of much discussion between WP editors on other pages). Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Battle of Hastings is the last time (other than the Cromwell situation) where an English king was overthrown. Is anything done in reference to 1066? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we be celebrating a victory or mourning a defeat? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, and you're wrong anyway about 1066. Have a look at the Battle of Bosworth Field and the Glorious Revolution, for example. 87.112.158.100 (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

So maybe the British "independence day" should be the day the Romans left, whenever that was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In any discussion about this, please try not to confuse "English" and "British". They are very different concepts. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no specific day for that. There is a traditional year (410), but even that is not exactly accurate. (Would you believe we have a whole article about this?) Adam Bishop (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Curiously, the Fifth of November is also celebrated in New Zealand. Alansplodge (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither Britain nor England existed then :)

ALR (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In sum, then, there isn't one. Moves to promote St George's day do include proposals that come around every so often to make it a bank holiday. I'm not holding my breath. Apparently, England has fewer bank holidays than most of our European partners. It's also tied into the English nationalism issue - particularly agitation by a few regarding the apparent inequity - no English parliament, versus the West Lothian question. There's no huge English agitation on any of these matters, just a few grumbles. How very English. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. None of the four Saints days really get much recognition. Mind you there is a ocmpletely different rationale, none of the four constituents have really had that clear point in history that justifies that level of recognition. ALR (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is no English equivalent of the US Independence Day. There have been various proposals for an English, British or United Kingdom national day holiday - see British Day - but none of these proposals has widespread acceptance, and all of them generate significant opposition from different quarters. Maybe national days are the equivalent of birthdays - an important celebration when you are young, but less significant when you are older and more mature (as a person or as a country). Gandalf61 (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest May Day as the nearest we get? In some parts of the country pagan fertility rituals are still observed (maypoles, morris dancing and the like). I'd also put forwards the idea that the English don't go in for overt displays of emotion and affection, and so celebrating a "national day" is somehow infra dig. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the Queen's Official Birthday is closer to the mark. That's when knighthoods and other honours are dished out, and the Trooping the Colour takes place. Plus, it's in keeping with the National Anthem being God Save the Queen. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

A Jubilee Street Party, 1977

Yes but unlike some parts of the Commonwealth, we don't get a day off, and there's no general celebrations apart from those who go and cheer in The Mall. We do have Coronations, Jubilees and Royal Weddings, when people decorate their houses, put out the flags and sit down to a party tea in the middle of the road with their neighbours, but these are not annual events. As Ghmyrtle says, these are British celebrations rather than English ones, but we English embrace them a bit more enthusiastically than our fellow Brits from the "Celtic Fringe". Alansplodge (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, as a minor additional thought - we don't tend to do 'flag-waving' and being obviously nationalistic. It just isn't in our makeup. 194.223.35.225 (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I England we have a tendency to be just a little bit ashamed of being English. The st Georges cross is rarely used and even the union flag is fairly rare in comparison to the welsh or Scottish (and even Cornish). I would suggest that possibly there's just a little hereditary guilt over the empire. Abergabe (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Scotland and Wales (and to some extent Cornwall) essentially define themselves in terms of being "not England". England doesn't really define itself in contradistinction to another area in quite the same way (except, sometimes, "not Germany"). And, it is, both historically and now, a very diverse area which in many ways lacks a clear sense of its own identity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Historically, England defined itself for quite a while as "not French" (which is ironic, considering 1066 and All That and the fact that the French aristocratic refugees from the French revolution had a major role in forming English society) and in particular "not Catholic". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree about the flag waving. When we do do flag waving, we do (at events named above). It's just that it's not an all-day, every day thing. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We wave flags at sporting events. That's about it. --Tango (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a big part of it is the age of the country. England has been around in its present form since 1066, pretty much (things like Magna Carta and the Act of Union 1707 changed things a bit, but not to anywhere the extent that it could be considered a new country - even when we became part of the United Kingdom, it was really just Scotland becoming part of England for most purposes). That means we have built up lots of (now very obscure) traditions that we are very attached to (eg. the use of Norman French in the Royal Assent) but we've got used to the country being here so don't make a big deal about it in any direct way. --Tango (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Last Night of the Proms and sporting events tend to be the only shows of patriotism, and many of us look on these shows with amusement rather than any feelings of patriotism. The "nationalistic" cause I would support most fervently would be Home rule for Yorkshire! (Why don't we have an article?) Dbfirs 09:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Freedom for Tooting! Abergabe (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that the age of the country has anything to do with it. A lot of European countries that are as old or even older have national days. The concept of a national day is quite new, usually linked with the origin of the concept of the nation state that sprung up in the 19th century. I guess the reason why the UK doesn't have a particular national day may be sought in that period in history. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sculpture identification

Near the UN Headquarters in New York, there is a sculpture with several stone columns. One of the columns has a gleaming blue ball on top of it. I read the plaque on it but now can't recall who it's dedicated to. Can anyone help? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 22:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If you know exactly where it is perhaps you could find it on Google Street View to help with identification. --Sean 15:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought of that too, but funnily enough I tried looking at UN HQ once on Street View and it didn't come up, perhaps for security reasons which is a bit odd as thousands of people walk past it every day. I haven't tried it lately though. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 15:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's in a park, it might be on this page[1]. I've never been to NY so it needs a more expert eye. Alansplodge (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not in a park. It's in the middle of 1st Ave. just north of the intersection of 1st and 46th. If you look on Google Maps, you'll see the shadows of the pillars. Maybe I'll just upload my picture of it. That might help with identification. Then I can get that image deleted and upload it again with a better file name... Dismas|^(talk) 17:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a picture of it: http://i.imgur.com/T7YDZ.jpg --Sean 18:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Here we are: Raoul Wallenberg, article about sculpture. Found answer on Google Earth. --Sean 18:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 01:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

August 12

Faith

According to Wikipedia's own article faith is:

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. The word "faith" can refer to a religion itself or to religion in general.

For a period of several years I called myself an Atheist, saying words like logic and reason a lot. Because of my liberal political leanings I was disgusted with the state of The Earth and how Man has been destroying it. It came to pass that I noticed the growth in intensity and frequency of Natural Disasters was in line with Bible Prophecy. On top of that disbelief in God in general would be a sign of The Last Days.

Before I picked up a Bible, though, I thought about what I thought. I pondered, 'why do I accept so easily what a man who went to school for a long time says?'

So, in a round-about way, I have arrived at the question... How much faith (keeping in mind the definition from this project) does it take to trust science? Is science becoming a religion? And, for bonus points, what is truth? schyler (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Cop out alert: Take a look at Truth which, the article tells us, "can have a variety of meanings". My bonus points, please? Buddy431 (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, but there are criteria to receive bonus points (answer the other questions). schyler (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are asking specifically about trusting your science professors, well, they know more than you, that's why they're the professors. If it is also your goal to be a professional scientist, then you too will someday know a lot more and can teach others who don't know as much yet. You may also discover new things and challenge the older research of the people who taught you. That's the fun part about science. It's not that something is true because your teachers say so, and you don't have to trust them, you can go do your own research and see if they're right. But at certain levels of education it's just easier to teach things as if they are absolutely true; the class isn't directed specifically at you and not every student may go on to become a professional scientist, but those who do will eventually understand their subject in greater detail and with greater subtlety. And if you're just a student taking a class for fun or to fulfill credit requirements, then yes, you do sort of have to take your professors at their word, assuming you want to get good grades. Hopefully that makes sense. Basically, you easily accept things that are taught to you because, well, what do you know? You don't know anything. But before you go pick up your Bible again, shouldn't you also ask why you would so easily accept anything it says. With science, you may not know anything, but you could if you spent enough time learning. Is that true for the Bible? Is it true that natural disasters are increasing? If so, what does that mean? Is this the only time in history that has happened? Why would the Bible prophecy refer specifically to disasters happening now and not at some other time, past or future? Is disbelief in God really any greater now than at any other time? How do you know that prophecy refers to this period of time? And so forth...if you didn't believe your physics professors' descriptions of the shape of an atom, for example, you could go do your own experiments to see if they are right. If you think these are the Last Days, how could you possibly test that, aside from waiting for your whole life? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Insofar as you haven't done any of the research yourself, you must trust the scientist to have done their jobs reasonably well. That requires a certain amount of faith. To me, the difference between religion and science is that, with enough effort, you can perform the experiments in science to see for yourself (which is what the scientific method is.) With religion, you can't do the same thing, and faith is required. I support religion, too, but the type and degree of faith required is different. Aaronite (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And, I will add, I have come to the opposite conclusion as you: I think life is better now than it has ever been for most of the world. Life expectancy is longer, indicating better health overall. That's just one example I can think of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronite (talk • contribs) 05:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Schyler, as we have already explored, faith cannot be fully reasoned to, (in question: how did Jesus convince....). Faith must indeed stand up to scrutiny but cannot be fully reasoned to. The prophets of the Bible, warn about putting ones trust in man. That should be in God alone, as He will not disappoint. Theology is the study that explores faith and studies its logic in so far as this allows. We are urged by God to study the "sign of the times". However, we do know that having a clear conscience is a good starting point to explore personal faith. Being a person of "good will" would be an important starting point. MacOfJesus (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In science, assuming you are not a scientist yourself, you put your trust in the community of practitioners. (And even if you are a scientist, you usually can only "confirm" things within a pretty narrow field of study.) You put your trust in a system — "this must be true, because if it wasn't true, there would be lots of people happy to say so." Now, it is a system of human beings. It is naturally going to make mistakes and suffer from all of the logical fallacies that humans suffer from — groupthink, Matthew effect, popularity contests, etc. But it is a system which has three nice things going for it: 1. it is dynamic and does change over time (even if it is sometimes slow); 2. there are practical fruits of its being reasonably correct (if quantum mechanics were not a pretty good description of how the world works, your USB drives would not work); and lastly, and perhaps most importantly, 3. it is a system that recognizes explicitly the only likelihood of its being wrong.

It's pretty hard for me to find a religious system that does any of those three things, and they seem pretty important, a priori to any system of knowledge creation that does not involve simply believing that truth was written down perfectly some many thousands of years ago and hasn't changed since then. With science, the "faith" you are putting is in something that has little faith in itself in the long term. With religion, the "faith" you are putting in is with something that is utterly confident of its need to be correct.

Now this is an exaggeration of both science and religion, to be sure. You will have your dogmatists and your skeptics in both. (Those who do not believe there are skeptics in religion should hang out with more Unitarians!) But it is, I think, a good framework for thinking about what knowledge systems make sense to put one's faith in, and what you get out of each. Scientists certainly overstep the boundaries of what they really know all of the time — they love to extrapolate, and some certainly do get a lot out of being a "new priesthood." One must retain one's skepticism with them, to be sure. I find most evolutionary psychology to be pretty unlikely, for example — 1950s cultural values dressed up in Darwinian language. But that doesn't mean I don't find natural selection as a whole to be a far more compelling model than instances of special creation.

I certainly don't think it is very logical to put your faith in matching up events to the descriptions of the End Times, which has been a losing game for two thousand years, and is a clear example of a pattern recognition error. Everybody always thinks that their current time matches up with the End Times. It's the oldest trick in the book, religion-wise — vague prophecies that fit just about anything in a world where there are lots of natural disasters. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr 98, While point #3 is unique to science, point 1 also occurs in religion. Are you telling me that Christianity has not changed in 2000 years? I suggest you compare a Southern Baptist with a Catholic and a Greek Orthodox and then tell me that that religion is not dynamic. Googlemeister (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Point 3 isn't unique to science, and Mr 98 never said any of the points were. He said he was exaggerating both science and religion. I mean, we can play the game with any of the points: one of the complaints that Evangelicals often have of Catholicism, for example, is that it doesn't offer enough certainty. I don't know what they think of Anglicans! And ask a Catholic who was practicing both before and after Vatican II whether their religion changes. You could even fudge about with the phrase 'practical fruits of being reasonably correct' to discuss societal and personal affects of living by certain rules. But that doesn't invalidate what Mr 98 is saying, which is a general point about the general characters of science and religion. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I do thank you Wikipedians for your participation. schyler (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

no one gets to click this because no one got bonus points schyler (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Scientism may be of interest. It has a section "Relevance to the science and religion debate", but I want to voice some caution about that. The article opens by mentioning Popper and Hayek, who were both interested in the misapplication of natural science to the social sciences, that is to say, they were interested in opposing Hegel: they were interested in a diverse society where knowledge can grow, as opposed to tyrannies, mightiness, historical inevitability, etc., which something that looks like science (and incorrectly views people like machines) can be used to advocate for. So far so good; and now we have Dawkins and Dennett, who want (rightly if you ask me) to break "the conviction that religion is off-limits to scientific inquiry". My point is that this is not at all the same thing as the Hegelism debate; it's not the same thing as social sciences versus natural sciences. Quite a lot of The God Delusion addresses the question of whether science can be applied to religion. For instance there is a section of chapter 2 titled "NOMA", which is an acronym coined by Stephen Jay Gould for "non-overlapping magesteria", meaning that science can't question religion. Dawkins says: "This sounds terrific - right up until you give it a moment's thought. What are these ultimate questions in whose presence religion is an honoured guest and science must respectfully slink away?" ... in the case of Popper's objection to, say, historicism, he's not opposed to rationality, but rather to thinking of things which are not machines (that is, people) as if they were machines. I think this criticism of the ideology of science is meaningful, but the concept of "NOMA" is vacuous. Sorry for being longwinded. 213.122.51.251 (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I enjoyed The Selfish Gene but found The God Delusion irritating and couldn't even make it to the awesomely named chapter, "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God". Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I would dispute the basic premise, namely that there are any more natural disasters than there ever were in the past. The earth is "alive", in a sense, and always has been. We're just better at keeping records now. I expect when Mount Mazama blew its top thousands of years ago, the Native not-yet-Americans might have thought the world was coming to an end. And what about the similar incident at Santorini that probably gave rise to the Atlantis legend? Or the volcanoes of Italy smothering Roman cities? Those were significant events, hence they stayed in historical memory. Less significant events would have been considered "not notable". Religionists often fall into the "recentism" trap. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC) This relates to the evolution debate also. Strict-constructionist religionists will argue that evolution as science thinks of it could not possibly have happened "by accident". Certainly it couldn't have in just six thousand years. But it could certainly happen in millions of years, which is a quantity we really cannot comprehend. But if there's anything God has plenty of, it's time. We might be in a rush, but He's not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And as regards "truth", there are two kinds: what you think it is, and what it really is. Say there was an auto accident. Two witnesses might see it differently, so there are two different "truths" right there. But there was only one reality. That's where security cameras come in. But even security cameras could be misleading. So the tricky part about "truth" is that there is in reality only one "truth", but that doesn't mean we know, or even can know, what that truth actually is. Science and religion both seek "the truth". It's fair to say that their methods for doing so are quite different. But they do have one thing in common: Once they think they've got it figured out, they stick with it, often despite any new and contradictory evidence. That's where science and religion become hard to distinguish. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

science - excuse me, science done well - limits itself to things that can be systematically observed. There's always an element of faith in it, as in all human thought - induction is essentially faith that observed regularities will continue to be regularities - but the entire raison d'etre of scientific investigation is to insist that belief-claims about the universe are substantiated by replicable empirical evidence. the two mistakes that people always make with science are (1) to assume that science has some authority beyond its ability to back up a claim with empirical evidence (it doesn't), and (2) to assume that science is just mere beliefs, when in fact science produces beliefs that can be practically demonstrated (and that last phrase makes all the difference: one would be a fool to believe that unicorns exist unless someone trotted one out on a leash, in which case one who be a fool to believe they don't exist). --Ludwigs2 18:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

To go back to the original question: about truth. Where do you find it? I refer you to the words of Jesus to Pilate: "...to bear witness to the truth and all who are on the side of truth listen to my voice." Pilate: "Truth what is that?" (John Ch 18 vrs: 33-40). I therefore give you the words of Jesus, the truth. Read them with an open mind and heart. (P.S. I don't look for Brownie points). MacOfJesus (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Err... that was the bonus question. but as someone once said: truth is beauty that speaks to the mind rather than the soul. and I don't think you'd find a physicist or a mathematician who'd disagree. --Ludwigs2 20:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That's someone's personal, poetic opinion of what "truth" is. I insist that "truth" equates to "reality", and that at least part of our lives is a quest to try and figure out what that reality is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

except 'reality' is just a synonym for 'perceptual truth', and so that definition is entirely circular. really, poetry may be the only functional approach to ontology. --Ludwigs2 20:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking factual reality. As with the car accident, two people might see it in different ways, but it only has one reality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

and which reality is that? the one described by an interaction of particles at the quantum level? no, wait, that probabilistic... I understand the urge to cast the world as having 'one reality', and I don't even disagree with it, but it is about as tangible as a reference to god. we have no access to that. --Ludwigs2 22:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Except that the observers will never agree about what actually, factually happened, and there is no Final Arbiter. Facts are things about which there is general agreement. That general agreement does not necessarily mean those things are actually true; we can never know what is actually true in the world external to ourselves, all we have is our perceptions. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. We can't always know "the truth", but we can strive to try and figure out what the truth might be, and once we think we've got it figured out and stop exploring, then we're in trouble. It happened to Einstein, it can happen to anyone. Another example that comes to mind is "the Perfect game that wasn't", a few months ago. The primary "witness", the umpire, called the batter-runner "safe" at first base. Others thought he should have been called "out". Replay showed he should have been called out, and even the umpire admitted it. So, the reality appears to be that the pitcher caught the ball and stepped on the base before the batter-runner's foot hit the base. Without any kind of recording devices, there would be no way to know. That doesn't mean the recording devices are perfect either. But they are more consistent than eyewitness accounts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

[2]... I'd like to hear some more from y'all about science requiring faith. schyler (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I just give you the words of Jesus. "I am the way, the truth and the life..." All these other things will fall into place then. MacOfJesus (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and those who believe that are Christians, and those that don't, aren't. Just because He said it, don't make it so - except to those who believe it. Unfortunately (or perhaps conveniently) there were no instant replay cameras around in Jesus' time, so all we have are variant eyewitness accounts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

When you speak of truth as physical reality and mention a car accident/tragedy; consider, The Father asked His Son to take up the cross and die the death he did at age 33 for us! MacOfJesus (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark 6:11

What is the point of this question, anyway? If Schyler just wants to hear about science requiring faith, he is obviously not looking to be enlightened about anything. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he/she, Schyler, is trying to enlighten us? However, I do not see the relevance of Mk 6:11 about the mission of the twevle? I didn't place it in. MacOfJesus (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought you'd know that bit. Jesus himself said that if you are preaching to people, and they don't listen or buy it, you're supposed to shake the dust off your feet and leave. You're not supposed to stick around, repeating yourself and trying to convince people who really aren't going to be convinced. Otherwise you're just making people think of christianity as annoying and repetitive. (That last sentence is my interpretation, not something Jesus actually said. Although it does make me think of the parable about the man who annoyed his neighbour into giving him bread.) 82.24.248.137 (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Jack of Oz, you preceive truth as a reality of preseption of things/events outside yourself, this makes you leaning towards phenomenology. I lean towards existentialism, that states the only thing you know is that you are because you think! Truth is more thought than things. MacOfJesus (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry this is the reference desk, can we please stick to reference-providing? This is not a place for discussing your particular beliefs. --Lgriot (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I have to interject, here. MacOfJesus, you don't seem to understand the orthodox usage of philosophical terms. Existentialism does not hold that "only thing you know is that you are because you think" or that "Truth is more thought than things". The former proposition is a rationalist hypothesis first advanced by Descartes, undermined by initial existentialists (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky...), and demolished by Wittgenstein building on Moore and Heidegger. Phenomenology and existentialism are not necessarily divorcible - see, again Heidegger, and even Merleau-Ponty. Moreover, your conceptual analysis of truth bears no resemblance to an account found either in mainstream existentialist thinking or that of phenomenology. While I understand the general desire to express one's view at the Reference Desk, one should refrain from actually commenting on doctrines unless one knows what one is speaking of The Rhymesmith (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You are taking what I've said out of context. This point I've made is relevant, as the OP asked about truth. Jack of Oz sees truth as definite things and reality that is preceivable. And so we will never be able to agree on truth if we define it differently. This is relevant to the question posed. All of what I've said is relevant to the questions asked. I have given references where relevant. MacOfJesus (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Bible quotes aren't exactly references. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

To understand, what, where, truth resides anything that is a definitive reference is a true citation as is with phenomenology and existentialism, whoes article pages I assume you have studied by now. MacOfJesus (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. What does that mean? The Rhymesmith (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Schyler, your first question is somewhat addressed at http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh good gravy! If you're going to stick in a link to the creation wiki, then have a link to the talk origins archive. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not speak the name of gravy in vain. --Ludwigs2 23:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to appear like a jerk, but please, all, do remember that the reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or... Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead. There should be an expectation that information supplied at the reference desk is legitimate, and passing individual opinions about philosophy off as actual philosophy does not quite count. This whole debate is riddled with misuse of philosophical language, and will not serve anyone who is looking for an explanation of philosophical approaches to certain questions. (contrast inserting random equations in the math reference desk). The Rhymesmith (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

When I spoke of two different forms of thought I simply meant to draw attention to the general thought of these studies rather than give a clinical definition of both. Often they can overlap and in some exponents of either study this has been expounded. My main reason is not to give my opinion but to bring clarity in the discussion at the step reached, in a terse form. The discussion is about faith and truth and how we define these, and how one interacts with the other. MacOfJesus (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

But you did not draw attention to the 'general thought' of either existentialism or phenomenology (neither of which is a "study", by the way - both are loose movements in thinking identifiable by certain primary concerns). You've suggested that the cogito, a Cartesian foray into epistemology, is at the heart of existentialism, which is simply, empirically wrong. Even at the most basic level, the basic precept of college-level Sartre-esque existentialism is that existence precedes essence. Existentialists rarely comment on epistemology while "being existentialist", but those who do (Kierkegaard on doubt; Heidegger on being-in-the-world) quite ferociously repudiated Cartesian concepts of doubt and certainty. You claim to be Christian and existentialist, but your views have nothing in common with Kierkegaard or Dostoevsky. You sound more like a classical Cartesian skeptic admitting the existence of God (the opposite of existentialism). You speak of "(perceiving) truth as a reality of preseption of things/events outside yourself" being phenomenology and direct someone to read that article. Truth as a reality of perception? What does that mean? It's a string of words without much in the way of content. Do you mean that truth is relation of perception between things that are independent of an individual and the individual? That sounds much more like naive realism coupled with a correspondence theory of truth. (In fact, that's exactly what Baseball Bugs is espousing, except he's not cloaking it in philosophical language). It has absolutely nothing to do with phenomenology.

You remark that "Jack of Oz sees truth as definite things and reality that is preceivable. And so we will never be able to agree on truth if we define it differently.". The very fact that you can have this discussion at all indicates that you do substantially agree about truth (your usages of the word "truth" coincide in the vast majority of cases).

Your wish to bring clarity is commendable, but you've more or less done the opposite by throwing around technical language and (particularly) the names of specific movements in philosophy. What amounts to a philosophical discussion here should not be an opportunity for all to express their views on the topic at hand, because at the Humanities Reference Desk a random reader should have a reasonable expectation that answers given reflect the academic conception of philosophy, just as a reader at the Science desk should not be treated to someone's personal critique of special relativity. I don't object to this kind of debate - I just object to its presence here. The Rhymesmith (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I have not said what you have said that I have said. I have spoken of "leaning towards". Truth is a vast subject and cannot be seen as objective things outside oneself only. This is the thought I reacted to. MacOfJesus (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything I remarked on was a direct reply to a quote of yours. This statement - "Jack of Oz, you preceive truth as a reality of preseption of things/events outside yourself, this makes you leaning towards phenomenology. I lean towards existentialism, that states the only thing you know is that you are because you think! Truth is more thought than things" - is philosophically gibberish. Existentialism and phenomenology have nothing to do with the thoughts of either you or Jack of Oz, as I noted above. He is not "leaning towards" phenomenology. He is a naive realist, as most people are, with a naive correspondence theory of truth, again, like most people. The Rhymesmith (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

" Truth is a vast subject and cannot be seen as objective things outside oneself only. ". Let's look at this utterly unclear "thought". First, truth is a concept. "Seen as objective things outside oneself only"? That doesn't make sense in English, let alone the language of philosophy. Do you mean that truth cannot be seen as a relation between oneself and objective things outside oneself? Or that truth cannot be seen as an objective thing outside oneself? And, what, pray tell, does any of this have to do with either existentialism or phenomenology? You state above that "To understand, what, where, truth resides anything that is a definitive reference is a true citation as is with phenomenology and existentialism, whoes article pages I assume you have studied by now.". This also makes no sense in English. Please, do stop directing others to study philosophical topics at the Reference Desk when you clearly have no grasp of what they mean yourself. The Rhymesmith (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You have confused my position with that of another. The very thing you object to is what I have objected to. The concept of truth implies judgment and I was deliberatly not giving my opinion on it, as I am not now. I am also refraining from making personal judgements on others. MacOfJesus (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, it's impossible to tell, given the syntactic contortions. Nevertheless, your articulations of existentialism and phenomenology are clearly and grossly inaccurate. The Rhymesmith (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Western attempts to "destabilise" USSR

Is there in evidence of any Western (US/UK or Nazi Germany) attempts to "destabilise" USSR during the reign of Stalin? Is there any article (here) that covers this topic? 180.149.48.245 (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You could start at Truman Doctrine. schyler (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a two way street. Shadowjams (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it was, but that isn't what he's asking about. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 10:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. You have anything to add? Shadowjams (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I do. it's questionable if the Berlin war was a USSR attempt to destablise the west. In fact haven't we just established that the west was happy about the wall because it meant the USSR wasn't going to take Berlin and/or wouldn't use the loss of their citizens as a reason for war. It's also questionable how much the cuban missile crisis was an attempt to destablise the west. Arguably it was far more about the USSR wanting to protect themselves and what they regarded as their terroritory and equalise a fairly unlevel playing field created partially by the US installing nukes in their allies territories which were a similar distance to the USSR as the Cuban ones were to the US (but seemingly thinking it was okay for them, but not the USSR). The fact the US went nuts and nearly cause a war wasn't really the USSRs intention and was somewhat reflective of the fact leaders on both sides were a bunch of idiots but thankfully the ones in the USSR weren't stupid enough to accept the US's plans to go to war. Nil Einne (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am interested whether there is any evidence to Western attempts during Stalin's reign; in particular anything before the Great Purge.180.149.48.245 (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

...and it started much earlier - the Soviet Union was in part the outcome of Germany destabilising Tsarist Russia by smuggling Lenin in. After the Soviet take-over, the Entente intervened in the Russian civil war. Stalin was a paranoid asshole, but the Russians had good reasons for being paranoid. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am interested in evidences; declassified documents, etc. 180.149.48.245 (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, as you know, during WWII the US and the USSR were Allies. The closest one finds there to "destabilization" from the US is in trying to edge out Stalin's postwar plans and to get US-UK superiority (e.g. by "keeping" the bomb from Stalin). During the interwar years I'm not sure the US had too much to do in trying to destabilize the USSR. From 1917 until 1933 the US basically had a total diplomatic blackout of the USSR. An odd exception to this was the US giving the USSR significant aid in 1921 as a result of a famine in the Volga region. At that point Roosevelt went out of his way to try and help the USSR pay back its war debts and normalize relations. And of course by that point you are starting to edge into WWII territory. (Source: Benjamin Rhodes, United States foreign policy in the interwar period, 1918-1941). As for the postwar and Cold War, there are all of the classic foreign policy gambits of the 1940s and early 1950s, though I don't think anyone in the US really thought these would do anything more than "contain" the Soviets at best. (But there are perhaps things I am not recalling.) I don't know about German attempts other than the obvious ones. We do have an article on Soviet–German relations before 1941. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Radio Free Europe started when Stalin was still around and broadcast propaganda into the USSR, presumably to destabilize it, or at least rattle its chain. --Sean 15:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the White movement lasted till the early days of Stalin's rule. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Reinhard Gehlen and his Org, recruited by the CIA, conducted covert operations soon after the war.John Z (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Nazi Germany had quite a few ventures to destablize the USSR, parallel to the war effort itself. At Pan-Turkism#Nazi_Germany_and_Pan-Turkism we find the following: "At less official levels, emrigrants from Turkic groups in the Soviet Union, played a crucial role in some of the negotiations and contacts of Turkey and Germany. Among these were pan-Turkist activits such as Zeki Velidi Togan, Mammed Amin Rasulzade, Mirza Bala, Ahmet CafarOglu, Sayid Shamil and Ayaz Ishaki[29]. Several Tatars, organized military units of Turkic speakers in Turco-Tatar and Caucasian regions from the prisoner of wars and these joined the war against the USSR, generally fighting as guerillas[29]. Many of them imbued with hopes of independence and several of these units aspired for a pan-Turkic union[29]. The units which were continuously reinforced numbered several hundred thousands of people of Turkic origin[29]." --Soman (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

SAT vs ACT

Hi everyone. Firstofall I get that these are two totally unrelated tests (except for their very general content coverage) and any attempt to convert between them would only be a very rough estimate. I have recently taken the ACT. Assuming minimal guesswork/luck was involved, what is a rough estimate of what score the skills represented by composite score of 32-33 on the ACT (with a full score in writing) would equate to on the SAT? Thanks. 68.76.157.132 (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Steph

Each of these tests should give a percentile "at or below" as well so you can compare those. We have a chart in our article: ACT (test)#Score cumulative percentages and comparison with SAT. Rmhermen (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you Google "act to sat conversion", you'll get a number of results. The first is for the official ACT website, which lists a range of 1400-1480 (Sum of SAT Critical Reading and Mathematics Scores) for the score range of 32-33. A 36 in English/Writing, not surprisingly, corresponds to 800 for SAT Writing. If you need an SAT equivalent for a particular purpose (e.g. applying to scholarships), most who allow for conversions specify what conversion table to use. If they don't, you probably want to contact those in charge and ask. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

school

Do president's children go to public school or private school?75.73.152.238 (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the President of the United States:

• In the immediate case, the children attend a private school.
• In the general case, there is no requirement that they attend private school. Amy Carter, for instance, attended D.C. public schools. — Lomn 19:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes private schools could be more secure, I suppose. Chevymontecarlo - alt 06:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

In that they are often smaller and are more likely to be boarding schools (so fewer people entering and leaving the school grounds on a regular basis), yes. I don't think there would be much difference between a large private day-school and a large public day-school, though. --Tango (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

inception

would inception possible in the next 50 years? Has there any technology that allow we create the dream to people's head?75.73.152.238 (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Inception of what, exactly? Edison (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Inception, presumably. However, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can't say what will be possible in 50 years. Present-day technology, while capable of crudely altering dreams, does not approach the movie in any meaningful way. — Lomn 19:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I mean base on our technology right now. Could it be possible in the next 50 years?75.73.152.238 (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

See the answer above. — Lomn 20:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

OK how about this question. Could we create the dream in people's head now?75.73.152.238 (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, there's only been fairly crude wiring to the brain's vision center, so a ways to go before your 3D HDTV glasses are replaced by a brain implant. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The simple answer to the OP's question is that we might be able to, but then again we might not. If the technology existed now, we would already be doing it! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There is not a lot of reason to suspect, based on current technology, that we'll be able to do this, I don't think. But making guesses about future technology is a rube's game — you can't win. If you are successful, it is dismissed as obvious. If you are wrong, you are laughed at for your efforts. Our understanding of the brain (or dreams) is nowhere near being able to insert ourselves into people's dreams. But understanding can change pretty rapidly, so who knows, in 50 years. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of a "rube's game" before, and we have no article on it. Is unwinnability the essence of the phrase, or does it mean something more than that? Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A rube is a fool, and connotes somebody who's easily taken advantage of. So a "rube's game" would be unwinnable and foolish to play (I've never heard the phrase either). Staecker (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"Rubes" and "marks" are carny terms for suckers, more or less. I'm probably mixing up my terms as usual, though. The term seems to have been pretty rarely used which probably means that I (and others) are mixing up our idioms somewhere. More common is a "fool's game," though I do like the carny overtones. But yes, the point is that it is unwinnable, rigged. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"Rube" or "ruben" is also a country bumpkin, someone ignorant of the ways of "city slickers". The term "jay" was also once used that way, and survives in the term "jaywalking". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

To this one need only add that 50 years is a lot more than 20.--Rallette (talk) 07:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, predicting it will be here in 50 years is safe, since most of us won't be here in 50 years, and even if we are, who's going to remember what we wrote in wikipedia 50 years ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This guy? Vimescarrot (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The philosophy of Inception is largely incoherent - while very slick, the subconscious, etc. simply don't operate as filmed. That being said, it's not in principle impossible to manipulate the content of another's dreams or thoughts. The Rhymesmith (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

difference between medieval SURCOAT AND TABARD?

Despite reading wikipedia pages about it and checking in wordbooks, I am still unsure sometimes what can be called a tabard and what can be called a surcoat, as these garments seem to vary a little. Am I right if i say a surcoat is what we usually saw a knight templar wear, the white one with the red cross, like seen on the picture of the templar? I've tried to upload a few pictures to make it easier. I'd appreciate if someone could help me understand what is what.

thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krikkert7 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This says the difference is that the tabard has sleeves. The book Medieval Heraldry seems to agree, forsooth. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Rather better described as flaps over the arms (like this[3]) rather than sleeves in the usual sense. The tabard has a broad front without an opening, whereas a surcoat is a big cloak that opens at the front. Alansplodge (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sleeves are separate garment pieces.--Wetman (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

August 13

St. John of the Cross

What's the origin of "of the Cross"? Our article says nothing about it, and the Catholic Encyclopedia article in the external links says that he adopted that name himself, but it doesn't explain anything about his motives or his source for the name. Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It would have ben a scandal at the time to propose Jesus died on a torture stake and not a cross, or that the symbol had been adopted from False Religion, and it still is today. The Catholic Encyclopedia you mention says he prayed constantly "to suffer and to be despised." He wanted, probably, to mark himself with the suffering Jesus experienced at his execution. schyler (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that this surname is simply his devotion, similar to that of St. Theresa of the Infant Jesus, so named because she was devoted specifically to the Child Jesus? I don't see how your first sentence is relevant here, however. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a Jehovah's Witness thing. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This biography, "St John of the Cross: his life and poetry" is on Google Books[4]. It goes into his life in great detail but only says; "This was in November 1568 and Fray Juan de San Matías, who was now 26, put on the rough habit that Teresa had sewn for him with her own hands and changed his name to Fray Juan de la Cruz" (p.15). Alansplodge (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I refer you to; "The Collected Works of Saint John of the Cross", translated by Kieran Kavanaugh, O.C.D. and Otilio Rodriguez. ICS Publications Washington D.C. ISBN 0-935216-14-6 $17.95. The book portrays the famous inspired drawing by St. John of The Cross, called "Christ Crucified". This drawing was in such a dimension that Salvador Dali used this dimension in one of his paintings. It has been said that St. John of the Cross is to the Spanish Language as is Shakesphere is to English. The drawing was in such a novel dimension that today remains extrardinary; hence his name. MacOfJesus (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Religions without written texts

1) Are there any current major religions without written texts? Do they all have a corpus of writing such as for example the christian bible? 2) Did all religions which have now died out - for example Norse mythology or the Greek or Roman gods - not have a corpus of texts? 92.24.190.46 (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You could argue to an extent that Shinto has no written texts. Of course, the Kojiki and the Nihongi are said to be Shinto's sacred texts, but really, they mainly cover how the Japanese Imperial family is connected to the gods, while there is a myriad of smaller gods of local importance that get little to no coverage in either. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think Norse mythology and the Greek and Roman gods did not have any written texts? How do you think we know about them now? Or did you mean a corpus of texts which are regarded as sacred in themselves? 82.24.248.137 (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Where did I say they did or didnt have written texts? I'm asking if defunct religions had texts. 92.29.127.240 (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

92.24.190.46 -- Ancient Norse culture actually had a rather limited use of writing until after Christianity was adopted; most of our information comes from Icelandic sagas etc. which were written down in the Christian period. Ancient Roman religion had written liturgical and divinatory rituals, and some literary collections of myths (such as by Ovid). Neither had anything that would really qualify as a comprehensive "scripture" similar to the Jewish and Christian Bible... AnonMoos (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

African traditional religion would qualify on all counts. --Sean 15:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The religious cults of Greek and Roman antiquity did not have Scripture, but they had hymns (see Homeric Hymn) and they had traditional incantations. Liturgy is a Greek word, an extension of the technical term in ancient Greek, leitourgia, signifying the often expensive offers of service to the people, and thus to the polis and the state. --Wetman (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The Celtic religion administered by the Druids eschewed writing its tenets in favour of memorisation, although some Druids (which, Peter Berresford Ellis and others argue, was a wider social caste from which the priests were drawn) may have been secularly literate in Greek or Latin. Consequently, revived neo-Druidism has to rely on indirect evidence to reconstruct what it can of the original beliefs, sometimes also supplemented by presumed memories of past lives in the original Druidic era. This is not such a problem as it might seem, since neo-Druidism (like other neo-Pagan paths) also actively develops its belief system by experimentation and philosophical debate. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There are some written accounts of the Druids, but in the written accounts of Saint Bridget and give good evidence of their migratory movements. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Irish Military Logo as Lyre With Shield?

I remember seeing a logo for what I thought was the Irish military -- it was a modern design of a lyre used as a shield with a man carrying a spear. I've searched the military pages and can't find it. Does anyone have any idea what it actually was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.46.47 (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Irish units in the British Army often include the Harp of Brian Boru in their cap badge design. I've had a browse too but couldn't see any likely suspects. Alansplodge (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried the emblems of the different Irish Army Regiments? Each have different badges, but never on the hat, that is reserved for the harp of Ireland and never polished! MacOfJesus (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

On reflection I think it is one of the Regiment Badges of the Leinster Province. I would need to see it to be sure. When you say "lyre" are you referring to a shape or a musical instrument? MacOfJesus (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If it is an Irish Army Regiment Badge, then part of the badge will have the province, i.e. Munster, Leinster, Cannaught, & Ulster. Their emblems can be viewed in their respective article pages. However, some do not have the province emblem, and I think this is one of them. If I could see the shield/badge you are referring to we may be able to positively identify it. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

were there any advanced ancient cultures that left no traces?

I'd like to know if there were any advanced ancient cultures that left no traces? 84.153.210.148 (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

..umm... how would we know? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, just one. It was in modern-day Wisconsin. Highly advanced, but now completely gone. They left no trace of their existence at all, so no study has been done on them and nobody knows that they existed... Honestly... If something leaves no trace that it exists, it is impossible to know that it exists. -- kainaw™ 17:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Jokes aside, you may want to rephrase your question - if the civilization left no traces, there'd be no way of knowing it ever existed. You may want to allow for at least some traces - what would those be? Ruins? Artworks? TomorrowTime (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Wisconsin. (Daydreams a bit about Laura Prepon.) Perhaps the person asking the question meant: How likely is this scenario? It is sort of wild speculation, but so is asking about the existence of extraterrestrial life. 83.81.60.233 (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If the question is meant to be "... advanced ancient cultures that left few traces?" there may be some useful answers such as the enigma surrounding the 2000 year old Antikythera mechanism or the little that is known about the Late Paleolithic period ending 30,000 years ago --Senra (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

For a culture with no apparent successors and no visible monuments, would the Tocharians and their languages interest you? Major Mayan cities are still being rediscovered. And does talk at the dinner table ever turn to Mari, Syria nowadays?--Wetman (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The Antikythera mechanism was made by ancient Greeks, about whom we know quite a lot, of course (and the mechanism itself is not really an enigma, it's just an astronomical clock). But there are plenty of other cultures that left few traces. Who built Stonehenge? Great Zimbabwe? Catalhuyuk? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a little like asking if there were any dinosaur species that never got fossilized. And the definitive answer to both is "it's possible". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

We know that fossilization is an extremely rare occurrence (Fossil#Rarity_of_fossils). So I think we can say that there must have been some small, soft bodied, island species, contemporary with dinosaurs, which didn't live near any handy lakes or tar pits, which went extinct without leaving a single fossil. Making the same kind of extrapolation about advanced civilizations sounds harder work, since a couple of qualities of advanced civilizations are that they are big, and that they habitually leave traces all over the place (was there ever an advanced civilization which didn't create a lot of nice artifacts?). 81.131.18.14 (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It could simply be that the artifacts aren't recognizable. See Terra preta for an interesting example. Matt Deres (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that perhaps Indigenous Australians loosely fit this bill. Their presence in Australia over 50 thousand years ago can not be accounted for by what we currently know, or any evidence we have so far found. The only way they could have reasonably got there is by sea, but that would have required a level of seafaring not seen anywhere else in the world for some tens of thousands of years. Vespine (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily (regarding your last point); thanks to glaciation, the gap between the Malayan archipelago and Australia was probably not that great, perhaps around 90km, according to our Prehistory of Australia article. That's a considerable distance, but hardly something requiring advanced ship-building or anything. Matt Deres (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your conclusion. I agree the distance might have only been 60km but that still requires a coordinated effort to go out to sea and reach a land which could not have been "known" of, in a time several tens of thousands of years before any other culture would be in a similar position to do so. Other Asian cultures migrating out to Polynesia didn't repeat the feat until around 4k BC. The earliest boats we have evidence of are simple dugout canoes about 10k BC, which aren't really craft you'd make even a 60km sea journey easily, especially if you don't know what's over the horizon. Studies have been done which show that the absolute minimum number of people required to start a viable colony in Australia would have been something like 25. This seems to exclude the possibility that a few fisherman (or more necessarily "women") were just "blown off course". I definitely think there is a gap between what we know and what happened. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting this means Aborigines are from Atlantis, or that aliens did it, or something ridiculous like that, I just mean we currently don't seem to have the evidence to account for what happened, we might never find out conclusively. Vespine (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There might well be some early advanced civilization whose artifacts have not been found, or which have been found but attributed to a later civilization, Edison (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the points already made about you needing to allow some traces, you need to clarify "advanced". "Advanced" is a relative term, so you need to tell us what you are measuring it relative to. Do you want civilisations that were advanced compared to other civilisations around at the same time in the same general area? Advanced compared to some particular baseline (eg. iron age Europe)? Advanced compared to us? (Discovering signs of a previously unknown civilisation from millennia ago (or even a different species millions of years ago) with more advanced technology than us is a staple of science fiction, but it's likelihood is pretty much zero - technologies certainly have been lost when civilisations failed, but anything on that scale is highly implausible.) --Tango (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There's the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex, which may (or may not) have been home to an ancient civilization previously "lost". Apparently it is not clear yet and researchers don't agree about it. See the section Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex#A previously unknown civilization? Of course there are "traces" to be found or we'd never learn about lost civilizations. For a civilization lost without a trace, see Mu (lost continent). Pfly (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

...although, just for clarity, "Mu is today considered to be a fictional place." Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be possible to estimate the number of traceless cultures by adapting the technique described on page seven of this book http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SBQGhcS0gPAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=biology+by+numbers&source=bl&ots=04q-SLAU74&sig=n-Pn-zv23WSJ0-mtgrfiMDd1TN8&hl=en&ei=2-NnTMuMK5KTjAfI5sXEDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false 92.29.114.222 (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Depending on your definition of "advanced", the answer could be "almost certain". For instance, where was Rhapta, and was it the centre of a small ancient civilisation? Even if guesses at its site as being Pemba are correct, the only evidence of its existence are an inscription and some coins, none of which were created locally. The Ikom monoliths are the only known remains of an ancient civilisation, about which nothing else is known. Given these examples, it seems highly likely that there were similar civilisations which left no (known) remains at all. Warofdreams talk 17:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sir Percy Blakeney's Title Confusion

The Scarlet Pimpernel

Sir Percy Blakeney is several times called, or referred to by other characters in the Baroness Emmuska Orczy novel as "my Lord," and "your Lordship." But if he is a "Sir," his rank can be no higher than that of a Baronet, in which case he would/should never be called "Lord." Is this a mistake by the author, or something else I missed in reading it?

According to Wikipedia and Debrett's, a Baron is a Peer of the Realm, and is addressed as "Lord." Thus if Blakeney was a Baron (or higher rank), he would not be "Sir Percy Blakeney," but "Lord Blakeney," or "Lord (place name)."

If he was – as is likely – a Baronet or a knight, then "Sir Percy Blakeney" would be correct, but he would not be referred to as "Lord" by others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Rogue (talk • contribs) 19:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

In The Scarlet Pimpernel, it calls him "Sir Percy Blakeney, Bart." in chapter 6, therefore a baronet. However, I can only find one place where he is called "lord". Sir Andrew Ffoulkes says "my lord always wears beautiful clothes" to the innkeeper Brogard, but that may be as a synonym for "leader". Clarityfiend (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Which would agree with the WP page Milord; "In the nineteenth century, milord (also milor) was well-known as a word which continental Europeans (especially French) whose jobs often brought them into contact with travellers (innkeepers, guides, etc.) commonly used to address Englishmen or male English-speakers who seemed to be upper-class[1] (or whom they wished to flatter) – even though the English-language phrase "my lord" (the source of "milord") played a somewhat minor role in the British system of honorific forms of address, and most of those addressed as "milord" were not in fact proper "lords" (members of the nobility) at all." Alansplodge (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Legal question

I'm not looking for legal advice, first of all--this is purely hypothetical and I don't intend to use it to defend myself in court or whatever. Is there any way I could modify anything I legally own (provided these modifications do not turn my stuff into weapons and could not possibly affect other people in any way) for my own, private use, that would be illegal where I live (Waukesha). I mean things I own as in furniture and stuff, not real estate (i.e., so not like rewiring my house to be a safety/fire hazard or turning it into a factory in violation of zoning laws, and also including turning my car into a racecar). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.185.33 (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean Waukesha, Wisconsin? Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The tricky part is the "could not possibly affect other people in any way"; if nobody is affected at all, then nobody knows about what you've done and, as the saying goes, it ain't illegal if you don't get caught." That's terrible advice, but I'm not sure what else to say without something more specific about what you're planning on doing. I don't know about Wisconsin, but in some places it might be illegal to, say, carve your headboard into a sexually explicit statue of a prepubescent child. Is that the kind of thing you're after? Matt Deres (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the article you need is List of items for which possession is restricted; you would go through the list and decide what illegal items are possible for you to create out of otherwise legal items. For example, you could probably make an illegal radar jammer out of a black & white TV set, two amplifiers, some baling wire, and a paper clip. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Buy (legal) electronic components, build an (illegal) TV transmitter and broadcast your own TV shows. It might not affect other people if you keep the output power low and stay away from interfering with other transmitters. However, as demonstrated in PTV (Family Guy), it won't be long before the FCC show up on your doorstep (at which point you can burst into song). Pirate radio Astronaut (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think — though I am no lawyer — that the legal point here is that the modification of personal property is not illegal as a modification of personal property. (There are potentially some exceptions where modifications are prohibited.) I think what's more important is what you are making out of it, which will fall under all sorts of more specific laws. For example, if you modify an assault rifle to be fully automatic in states where that is illegal, that is thus illegal. But it's not illegal because you are modifying personal property more generally — it is legal because of specifically what you are modifying it into. In New York City, if you paint your handgun pink, that is illegal. It is not because painting one's household objects pink is illegal, but because of specific laws against modifying real guns to look like toy guns. I could be wrong — the law is complicated — but it seems all the examples I can think of are of this nature. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Modification of the property as in and of itself could be prohibited if there was lien, easement, covenant or other such restriction on the property when purchased. These are most commonly applied to real estate, but, depending on jurisdiction, could be applied to other property. For example, the purchase of a work of art could be accompanied with a restriction that the owner may not destroy or deface it. Other examples are heirlooms or other inherited items, where a will might specify (potentially complex) conditions of ownership (although see rule against perpetuities for various limitations). - The other example prohibiting modification of items I can think of is computer software, where modification tends to be prohibited by EULA, although technically that's because you don't *own* the software itself, but rather *license* its use. -- 174.24.200.206 (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting — thanks! --Mr.98 (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

August 14

North York Federal Ridings Canada

In Toronto, which Canadian federal ridings are part of North York, Ontario? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.33.11 (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

York Centre, York West, York South—Weston, Don Valley West, Don Valley East, Willowdale, and Eglinton—Lawrence are all in North York, or parts of it. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, there is no North York any more, but we can talk about where it was.

Now, in the spirit of giving sources... curiously, Wikipedia seems to have maps showing each individual district in relation to the others but not a map showing all the districts with their names. However, these are available on the Elections Canada web site under this page and the map for Ontario, with a Toronto enlargement, is here. By comparing that map against this one showing where North York was located, we see that the list given above is essentially correct. Specifically, York West, York Centre, Willowdale, and Don Valley East ridings are entirely in the former North York; also more than half of Don Valley West and Eglinton—Lawrence, less than half of York South—Weston, and a tiny bit of Beaches—East York. --Anonymous, 13:47 UTC, August 15, 2010.

People do still talk about "North York" as a separate place though, like the other pre-amalgamation cities. You can even address mail there (of course, the postal code is more important than the name of the place). I know people who still give their address as "East York" or even "Weston"! Adam Bishop (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Consecration of Nero

The emperor Nero apparently did not accept a temple to Divus Nero, and his memory was damned. Was he ever consecrated after his death? Is there any sources stating that Nero was indeed made a Divus or called Divus in or after his lifetime? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.120.75 (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

What we have is at Imperial_cult_(ancient_Rome)#Julio-Claudian. AnonMoos (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"... Alienated from... " in 17th century English history

What event triggered the "... alienated from the see of Ely in 1600."? Something to do with Bishop Heton? It seems to be applied to manors (e.g. Little Thetford) and churches (e.g. VCH-Stretham) --Senra (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This google books result seems to explain it. Algebraist 11:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

thank you. Much appreciated --Senra (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Question about miscegenation

If it is more common for a white woman to date (marry, have sex with, have children with) a black man than vice versa by a disparity of it being about 5 times as common than black woman with white man, wouldn't it be in the genetic interest of all white women of reproductive age (regardless of how cruel this might be to white males and black females) to have offspring with black males? See sexy son hypothesis.--Cherchez la natation (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is especially significant given Europe's low birth rate and the fact that 50 million Africans are projected to enter the EU by 2050.--Cherchez la natation (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean are causes and/or effects here, and what the question is? Are you asking a hypothetical question about what would be in the genetic interest of women if your initial assumption was true? Or, are you asking if it is true? Or, are you asking if what you refer to as the "genetic interest" is the cause of the disparity? Or, are you suggesting a scheme to combat the low birth rate? Personally, I doubt that your assumption is true, and fail to see how projected immigration numbers are relevant. Both birth rate numbers and ethnic make-ups of couples are far more affected by attitudes in society than genetics./Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Non sequitur. You make broad assumptions based on a pattern you discern in a small, well defined fragment of the population. You also completely fail to encompass social patterns - Europe has a low birth rate for socio-economical, not biological reasons. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about your logic here. Sexy son hypothesis would suggest you'd want to have offspring that were considered sexy, and would choose your mate accordingly. OK, let's just go with that for the moment as a given.

What you've shown with your statistics — assuming they are correct about 5:1 ratio — is that the more common "mixed" relationship is black male + white female, rather than white male + black female. You haven't addressed non-mixed relationships (e.g. black male + black female, or white male + white female), which are surely far more prevalent. So it's not clear to me, from the beginning, that considering the mixed case makes much sense by itself, if one is trying to figure out what is "desirable".

Lastly, I don't see how this connects with sexy son at all. Are you implying that the advantage would be because the offspring would black males, and thus be more attractive to future mates? That seems like a stretch — your statistics, again, are only between groups. It's not unambiguously clear that black males in general have better reproductive success. And, of course, you're assuming the child will be a male anyway, and you've already indicated that you don't think black females have as much reproductive success. (Which I think is also false, and just an artifact of looking only at mixed race relationships).

I might not be expressing myself as clearly as I could, but do you see the problem with your reasoning, here? If the 50 million Africans were going to all be men, then maybe considering only mixed race relationships would make sense (because you'd be assuming, I guess, that there would have to be a large racial disparity), but I'm not sure that's a reasonable assumption. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The OP also fails to consider that since contraception is widely available how many children you have depends more on choice than on how many partners you can attract.Sjö (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That's very true. It's probably worth noting that for the most part, very few people seem totally unable to find partners willing to have children with them these days on the basis of skin color alone. I doubt it has any bearing in modern society on whether one can reproduce or not, if one is not very picky. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Free Movement, Work and the Schengen Area?

In the article, on the Schengen_Area, it says that people are free to travel without border checks -- but does it also mean that people from one Schengen country can live and work in another? e.g. France to Norway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.46.47 (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Schengen isn't about the right to work. But Norway is part of the European Economic Area, which does allow citizens of other countries of the European Economic Area and European Union to work there. As a counterexample, Great Britain does not take part in the Schengen agreements, but any EU citizen is allowed to work there. I'm not sure whether EU citizens are allowed to work in Switzerland (member of Schengen, but not EU/EEA) Unilynx (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite true. Currently, citizens of member states other than A8 and A2 may work freely in the UK. Citizens of A8 states may work but must register the work once they start. Citizens of A2 states are restricted in the work they can do. --Phil Holmes (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, of course, I forgot about the transitional measures for the new member states. Unfortunately the A8/A2 links above point to disambiguation pages, but I presume those refer to the Eastern Europe countries? Freedom_of_movement_for_workers#Free_movement_rights_of_nationals_of_new_member_states has a nice table showing when current transitional measures are set to expire. Unilynx (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Some questions from someone not that knowledgeable in economics.

Hello I would like to know the answer to these questions: 1) How would one country bailing out another weaken their shared currency? 2) what's the situation in Ireland and Spain at the moment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.199.121 (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

1) Quickly and very crudely, that depends on exactly what form the bailout takes. Normally, part of the rationale for bailouts in currency unions is to protect the common currency - the EU bailout of Greece, while expensive, was designed, in part, to protect the Euro from collapse. However, given how massive modern bailouts have become (the EU/Greece bailout in May approached $1 trillion), inflation becomes a near-certainty. Inflation reduces the ability of a certain amount of currency to buy goods, thus weakening the currency.

2)Both Spain and Ireland are in dire economic situations. Spain, with ~20% unemployment, is trying to institute austerity reforms to cut public spending. Ireland now has the highest level of household debt relative to disposable income in the developed world at 190%. The Rhymesmith (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

RANKS WITHIN THE CHURCH

I'm trying to learn some basics about the church and christendom, and at the moment I'm finding it a little hard to get an overview over positions and ranks within the church. So if someone who possesses some more knowledge than me on the subject could help me making a little list of the positions within the church in a ranking order, i would be most grateful. (of course, i know things might vary a little bit from the catholic church to the eastern and the western ones but a general overview over who outranked who would be very helpful.

The Pope (the Highest rank)

Arch-Bishop (Outranked only by the pope, am i right?)

Bishop (outranked only by the two above, am i right?)

and so on... if you could help me extend the list with more positions within the church; Chaplain, chancellor, cardinal, curate, minister etc. Krikkert7 (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If by this you mean the CAtholic church, here is the article we haveCatholic Church hierarchy. It includes all levels. Your order is missing a few steps, notably Cardinals, immediately below the Pope. 24.83.104.67 (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to answer. I did not mean the catholic church in particular, or any of them more than the other, but getting an overview of the catholic church positions is very helpful

The question is only possible to answer for a specific church- every church has its own hierarchy, and they're different from one another. For example, the Pope (who you put at the top of your list) is only Pope of the Catholics- he has no place in any other church's list. My own childhood church had a much shorter hierarchy - 1. Elders 2. Deacons 3. Everybody else, including the preacher. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes i know a pope is only part of the Catholic church. But i'd like to learn who was the higher-ups and most prominent members of the clergy in all of the churches. Maybe I asked in a clumsy way because my knowledge on the matter is limited and i find it very difficult to get into it, and i'm very confused by how complicated it all seems.

Forexample : I have always thought bishop to be one of the highest and most prominent positions to be obtained in the church (in both catholic and others) but then i learned that there are INNUMERABLE variants of Bishop, then i learn that cardinals are higher than bishops, only to then learn that cardinals are in fact usually some sort of Bishop. So it suddenly seems that a bishop can be very high up or farther down in the ranking order... Now i notice I mention Bishop a lot, but it is not only about Bishops but other important positions as well. And what i forgot to mention was that I'm most of all interested in these things as they were during the middle-ages. I suppose things can have changed a lot since the 12th to 14th century Krikkert7 (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want a pan-denominational view, then it's hard to be much more specific than first "minor orders", then priests/ministers, then bishops of varying kinds (of course, some denominations don't have bishops at all). Ca. 400 A.D., things were kind of formalized into a hierarchy of bishops and archbishops, under a "pentarchy" of the five patriarchates of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, but that scheme excluded the eastern Arian and Monophysite churches from the beginning, and over time the pentarchy came to be more and more irrelevant as an overall organizing scheme (and nothing else accepted by all prominent churches ever replaced it). AnonMoos (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to know about the middle ages, it will not really be any less complicated...actually it might be even more complicated depending on when and where in the middle ages. They were very interested in this sort of thing, for precedence at church councils, etc. There is a surviving list of participants at the Fourth Lateran Council which gives you an idea of the order of precedence, at least in 1215. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Not all churches have ranks. Consider, for example, congregational churches, which don't share any organization. Paul (Stansifer) 13:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Of the Protestant churches, the Anglican Church mainly follows the Roman Catholic setup except there are no Cardinals and of course, no Pope. See Anglican ministry for full details. The Lutheran Church also has an episcopal system (ie one based on bishops). However, both these churches are governed at a national level by a General Synod (like a church parliament) in which bishops, priests and congregations are all represented. Most other Protestant churches, following the teachings of John Calvin and others, have varying systems of elected leadership. Alansplodge (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You also have the Orthodox churches, which have hierarchies specific to them, mostly with either an archbishop or a patriarch at the top. There's at least the top echelons listed here. Just as a curiosity - there's even one Pope among those, his full title is (brace yourselves):"His Most Divine Beatitude the Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, Libya, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, all the land of Egypt, and all Africa, Father of Fathers, Shepherd of Shepherds, Prelate of Prelates, Thirteenth of the Apostles, and Judge of the Œcumene" TomorrowTime (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That refers to the Greek Patriarch of Alexandria -- and despite the grandiose titles, it's very noticeable that the Greek Patriarch of Alexandria has far fewer followers than the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria... AnonMoos (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

where can I read John Wayne Gacy's petitions from death row

Near the end of the John Wayne Gacy article it says "John Gacy spent much of his time on death row studying books on law and filing numerous, exhaustive appeals and motion" saying he had just "some" knowledge of 5 of the murders. I would like to read the text of any of these appeals or motions? Can someone provide a link where I may do so? Thank you. 92.230.64.158 (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The appeals cases are traceable backwards through the final appeal, which cites others. I doubt they are all online; that kind of legal minutiae is not usually digitized. Apparently the bulk of the Gacy legal files are in the Cook County Circuit Court Clerk. If you Google "People v. Gacy" you'll find some of the later appeals rulings online. There is even a law journal article on the legal legacy of his appeals, which apparently established some precedent. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Name change after Hajj?

I have heard from few sources that after one performs Hajj, (the pilgrimage to Mecca for Muslims), There is a name change or title that one carries for having performed this. The article doesn't seem to mention it, however. Is this a true statement or disinformation? ^Avic_ennasis @ 23:41, 4 Elul 5770 / 14 August 2010 (UTC)

See Hajji ^{Rojomoke (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)}

Facepalm Thanks. ^Avic_ennasis @ 03:04, 5 Elul 5770 / 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't feel bad. Wikipedia is a Hajj-Pajj. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

August 15

Is this Mongkut or Chulalongkorn?

. I have a photo I took of this same structure at Bang Pa-In Royal Palace, and inside it is a sculpture of a man in military uniform. Is the sculpture inside Rama IV or Rama V? 01:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.193.83 (talk)

This page[5] says "Phra Thinang Aisawan Thiphya-Art is a Thai-style pavilion with four porches and a spired roof built by King Chulalongkorn in the middle of an outer pond in 1876... This pavilion now houses a bronze statue of King Chulalongkorn in the uniform of a Field Marshal which was placed by his son King Vajiravudh (Rama VI). Alansplodge (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Revisionism

Hey, It's me again. Monday is the last debate in our debate club before school starts. The director decided to give us a really controversial one to provoke thought or some other stuff he said. Short version: The debate is whether we should revise things like religious texts and other documents if there is a good chance that they might cause or be interpreted to encourage violence and unrest (probably intended as an aside to certain interpretations of jihad in the Qu'ran), and I'm in the pro-revisionism camp. An argument that I plainly can forsee against me is that if religious texts can be modified then any art should be. How can I counter this, preferably without asserting that the Mona Lisa or Shakespeare's Hamlet should be vandalized/bowdlerized to remove chauvinistic depictions of women/violence or however they're going ot say it? 76.228.198.120 (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd go the other route (in for a penny, in for a pound) and say that art itself should be revised if it produces unpleasant social results. that argument was successfully used, at any rate, to produce mounds of truly horrific "Worker's Art" in the Soviet Union and a few other socialist systems (plus some very good stuff, such as the work of Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo). it's debate, man: go for the jugular. --Ludwigs2 01:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't one try to draw a firm distinction between religious texts and general works of art? People don't read Hamlet and say, "Oh, that's interesting, I guess I'll go kill my uncle now." It's not a prescription for how to live one's life — or, if it is (and there are such works of art), the penalties are usually pretty minor compared to the religious texts. To me the "art" question is a non-starter — we don't use art the same way we do religion. Even at its most political, art is pretty ineffectual at getting people to do anything. (Insert the cries of a thousand performance artists here, who desperately feel their art is "political" and important and influential.)

A tougher argument would be for political tracts and things that actually do try to incite violence, and have in the past. If you're going to bowdlerize the Qu'ran — a holy text over 1,000 years old and believed by millions of people around the world to be fairly close to the word of God — then what's to stop you from censoring everything that looks even remotely like revolutionary fervor. We might as well re-write the Declaration of Independence while we are at it. Certainly the works of the Founding Fathers — "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants," is pretty explosive stuff! I mean, the tough part of your argument is not art, it's that once you start censoring sacred, historical things, where do you stop? (Is anybody honestly proposing this? It seems to me like a totally silly thing to have to try and argue for, because nobody sensible would agree to it for a minute. But I might not be very sensible, myself.) --Mr.98 (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ludwigs2: I'd argue that this is pure utilitarianism; you're simply arguing we should always strive for the maximum social good, which is hard to argue against. You might also be able to sound very reasonable, if you're allowed to argue this, by conditioning the censorship on results. Do a large scale double-blind (somehow) scientific test of what happens when you bowdlerize text X or Y or Z, and if the censored text X correlates with the sample of people reading it to commit 20% fewer murders, then those arguing against the censorship sound like amoral, bloodthirsty crazies. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A form of this has happened in the UK. Our national anthem mentions the crushing of the Jacobite Rebellion, in a verse which is seldom if ever sung nowadays. One might wish to ask why the French still sing about the blood of their enemies running on the floor in their national anthem... --TammyMoet (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, almost all anthems follow a pretty predictable pattern: "we love our country, it is the most beautiful in the world, we will die for it in the name of God/the sovereign, we will kill everybody who might even consider invading." Laibach did an interesting album based on this. Incidentally, the German anthem was amended after WWII to abridge some of the Vaterland that was in the old version spread too broadly for comfort.

To the OP: you could always argue that it had been done before. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. The full old German anthem was inherited by the Federal Republic, but only the third verse ("Unity and justice and freedom...") was ever played on official occasions. Only after reunification did this situation change and the third verse alone did, by presidential decree, become the national anthem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A form of this has happened in the UK. Our national anthem mentions the crushing of the Jacobite Rebellion, in a verse which is seldom if ever sung nowadays. One might wish to ask why the French still sing about the blood of their enemies running on the floor in their national anthem... --TammyMoet (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

AIUI that vesrse was only ever used in 1745, but nationalistic Scots seem to know all the words. Some people like to make-up their own forms of discrimination. Alansplodge (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

:::What? How did that get there twice? I do apologise! --TammyMoet (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The blood is running on the floor of the French national anthem? :) The seldom (or actually never) heard third verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner" contains a charming line about how the blood of the fleeing British "has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth caveating that by saying that the majority of people can't remember beyond the first three lines of the national anthem. It's not some vast authoritarian conspiracy.

ALR (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

American or British? Or both? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The Canadian anthem has a weird line about "Ice tendon guards for thee". Something about hockey, I suppose. PhGustaf (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Says he with a straight face. How droll.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, it's kind of like the line in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance where we pay homage to some guy named Richard Stans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

In the Discworld novels, it's recognised that nobody can remember the second verse of an anthem anyway, so the second verse of the Ankh-Morpork National Anthem "We Can Rule You Wholesale" officially mostly consists of "hner"s - as performed here. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop signs

If a person goes through a stop sign on a city street, he can be stopped by the police. And he can be charged with a crime (or an infraction or a violation). Now, what about those stop signs that are placed on private property? For example, if there is a very large store (let’s say, a Wal-Mart or a Stop and Shop or whatever), they often have huge parking lots. And these huge parking lots often have stop signs placed here and there. However, the parking lot is strictly private property, and not a public city street. So, does the Wal-Mart parking lot type of stop sign have the same legal effect as a city street stop sign? If you drive through one, can the police stop you and charge you with a crime or infraction or violation? I would think not, but I am curious. Are the Wal-Mart parking lot type of stop signs of any legal effect at all? Or do we stop at them, essentially, only voluntarily, and not as a legal mandate? This question refers to the USA, by the way. Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC))

The exact rules of the road vary state-by-state, but as I recall, any unmarked stopping point (your driveway, for example) is an implied yield-right-of-way, or maybe even an implied stop sign. Many stores will have those "fake" stop signs, as a reminder. So the cop could theoretically ticket you for failing to yield right-of-way; especially if, by so doing, you get into a collision with someone who has the right-of-way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I googled ["rules of the road" "right of way"] and the first thing that came up was this,[6] from the state of New York, which seems typical of other rules of the road for other states I've lived in. Look about 2/3 of the way down the page. When approaching an unmarked intersection, or from a driveway, you are supposed to stop and yield to both traffic and pedestrians. In your own driveway, you're pretty much in control, but in a public parking area they need to post those stop signs in order to make it clear who has the right of way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

So, in the public parking lot (Wal-Mart) "fake" stop sign scenario ... is it the same type of crime/infraction/violation as going through a "real" (city street) stop sign? And what would give the private party (owner of the Wal-Mart parking lot) the "right" to determine where he "feels" he can place his stop signs? If I were the owner, I can just place these "fake" stop signs willy-nilly, wherever I feel like it? And they have the legal effect of "determining" who has the right of way? That doesn't seem to add up? I am confused. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC))

With the disclaimer that the Ref Desk cannot offer Legal Advice. I concur with what Bugs has said here.
• If you are parking in a privately owned parking lot, as a 'guest', it may be that you are obliged (morally or perhaps even legally) to follow the rules of the owner. If the land owner has Stop signs, then it would be advisable to heed them for your safety and that of other 'guests' (That perhaps even being a condition of you usage of the parking lot-if you read the fine print on the signs). If you have an accident,and dispute it, then go to a 'civil' court say to sue another driver, (as it was not on a public road) it will not look good for your case if you ignored any sign (even an 'advisory sign' possibly without 'legal' power of Police enforcement.
• In NSW, Australia, as per Bugs above, a pedestrian legally has right of way, cars are supposed to always give way to a pedetrian. For example, when a vehicle crosses a footpath/sidewalk, thay are supposed to stop, or at least give way to pedestrians, but this is often ignored.
• If you want a 'legal' answer to your query you should enquire of a police offcir or your local Roads Department.
• No legal Advice given here, just food for thought! 220.101 talk^\Contribs 02:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Instead of "fake" I should have said "non-standard", as they often seem to be made-to-order by the store. And as far as enforcement goes, if you violate one going onto a public thoroughfare, yes, you could be ticketed. But as far as stop signs placed strictly to regular traffic within the mall parking lot, that's a good question. I'll see if I can find anything about that. However, I suspect that shopping mall parking lots, being "public accomodations", are subject to traffic laws and regulations to some degree. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"what would give the private party the "right"" - rather, you may ask, who sets the obligations of the private landowner or tenant to maintain safety on their premises? East of Borschov 12:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I googled ["parking lots" "right of way"] and a bunch of opinions popped up, many of them no more informed than mine. However, this one from The Straight Dope bulletin board might be of interest.[7] It points out various things, of which at least two are important here: (1) The laws vary state-by-state; and (2) Some shopping centers have agreements with the local police that effectively turn the mall lot into public roads. In short, don't make any assumptions, and call your local authorities to find out for sure about your particular community and stores. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the short answer is that it depends on where you are talking about. In Ohio, yes, running a stop sign on private property is ticket-able. (Ref. Ohio Revised Code, 4511.432 (C), covers some residential dwellings, I forget the code for businesses.) In New York, it's only valid with written permission from an authority. (Ref. New York Vehicle & Traffic Law: Article 39 - § 1640-a.) Some local laws may override these, as well. ^Avic_ennasis @ 03:54, 5 Elul 5770 / 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess the following question is also a part of what I am "getting at". Can the landowner just put up stop signs, arbitrarily and willy-nilly, where ever he "feels like" doing so? Or does some authority (the town, a local ordinance, some building permit requirements, etc.) dictate to the owner where he can/cannot put the signs? If his privately owned stop signs have some legal effect, I can't imagine that he can place them willy-nilly where ever he pleases. There must be some oversight, no? Otherwise, as a landowner, I can place a stop sign in the most "odd" places ... and my guests will incur legal liability for my idiosyncrasies? Thanks! (64.252.34.115 (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC))

In British Columbia, in any place where the public can be reasonably expected to drive, whether public or private property, the Highways act and therefore the rules of the road apply. This doesn't mean the driveway to your house, but it doesn mean parking lots in shopping centres. I suspect (don't know for sure but it seems likely) that this means that, yes, the property owner could put up stop signs all willy-nilly. That said, they themselves would be forced to obey them, so it would be very inconvenient. Aaronite (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

prenatal influence

Am looking for info on the school of thought that was around at least as far back as the mid-1800's and used the vocabulary 'prenatal influence' when promoting the theory that a mother's thoughts and spoken words to her fetus could influence who the fetus would become. Dixie Willson (sister of Meredith Willson who created 'The Music Man') claimed that her parents were believers in this theory and that they had read a book titled 'Prenatal Influence' before their children were conceived. Dixie claimed that her parents decided that she would be a writer (which she did become)and that Meredith would be a musician. Am trying to learn more about this theory and it's influence on parents in the 1800's and early 1900's (Frank Lloyd Wright's mother is also reported to have been a believer of this theory <http://books.google.com/books?id=S7ZB90XmTdcC&pg=PA59&dq=frank+lloyd+wright+prenatal+influence&hl=en&ei=d0ZnTN2HOJPqnQflgJ3BBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false> and is reported to have decided before Frank Lloyd Wright's birth that he would be an architect)Jacollison (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There exist numerous indications that what fetuses experience in the womb influences their life after birth, although the actual theory of it makes few claims as grandiose as the 'Baby Einstein' pedlars, etc. I personally know little about the history of the theory, but I can help you with recent research into the cognitive science of 'prenatal influences', as you term them. Is this helpful? The Rhymesmith (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

However, there was a whole earlier pre-scientific theory of "impressions", that something striking or upsetting which a pregnant woman saw could affect her baby, especially the physical appearance (perhaps in the form of a birthmark shaped like what the mother saw). AnonMoos (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to the two who responded so far, but I am really wanting specific information on how the 'prenatal influence' school of thought influenced parents especially in the time period of mid-to-late 1800s and early 1900's. We know that the Willson's parents and Frank Lloyd Wrights parents subscibed to the theory and produced children with the intended careers they had attempted to influence. What writings influenced these parents? Are there other famous/influential people whose parents had attempted to influence their life choices prenatally?Jacollison (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In ca. 1900, modern cognitive studies on newborns had not yet happened, and the old theory of impressions was no longer taken too seriously by most educated people (and was probably transmitted more orally than in writing in any case), so I'm not quite sure exactly what you're asking... AnonMoos (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Here are some links on the old "impressions" superstition (the wikipedia article Maternal_impression is kind of vague in some ways): http://www.enotalone.com/article/18429.html , http://www.birthmarks.com/HTMLArticle.cfm?Article=343 . -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

parents who try to influence the child in the womb are not going to stop trying to influence the child after it's born, and parents trying to influence a child in the womb can safely be considered to be a bit obsessive, so it would be impossible to separate out the prenatal and postnatal influences on the child. 2. examination of success cases proves absolutely nothing: statistically, there will always be success cases to point to, no matter how absurd the theory in question.

This will all be anecdotal. 1. failure rates are much more indicative of the power of a theory, but we have no information on people who failed to become what their parents wanted them to become (except that such people constitute the vast majority of the world's population). really, this is 'patent medicine' territory: There's no evidence that children can do any language processing prenatally, and while they might pick up on tonal regularities (vocal emotions, musical compositions, etc.) they just don't have the cognitive structures to do anything with it. about the best you can hope for is that they will be acclimated to certain kinds of stimuli (e.g. if you read a lot of poetry aloud while you're pregnant your child might develop an emotional acclimation to the rhythms and cadences of the spoken word, and might be less resistant to reading and hearing such later in life, which might translate to better study habits...). But things like that are going to be far more profoundly influenced by how you interact with your child during the language acquisition stage. It can't hurt, I suppose, but it's really more for the parents than the child (like buying your baby designer clothes). --Ludwigs2 18:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: 'parents who try to influence the child in the womb are not going to stop trying to influence the child after it's born, and parents trying to influence a child in the womb can safely be considered to be a bit obsessive, so it would be impossible to separate out the prenatal and postnatal influences on the child.'. That is a given but I am still not finding the information that i need and want. Who was promoting this school of thought? Dixie Willson reported that her parents read a book titled 'Prenatal Influence'. Who wrote this book? What other authors were promoting this theory? Do we have evidence that other parents of famous and influential people in the mid-to-late 1800s and early 1900's subscribed to this theory and were obsessive in influencing their children pre and postnatally?98.108.40.200 (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln

On Abraham Lincoln's biography under presidency it states...

1961 as the start of his first term in office, it should say 1861 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.66.102 (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

St James

One of the churches nearby is called St James; dated c. 14th century according to Pevsner (1970) The buildings of England: Cambridgeshire p. 462

• dedication, see {{Infobox church}}: which St James would this church be dedicated to?
• punctuation: is "St James' Church, Stretham" correct for an article title? --Senra (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

According to this, there is no dedication save for just "St James". In that article, the church is referred to as "St James's Church". --TammyMoet (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I would go with James, son of Zebedee or "St James the Great"; sometimes confusingly called "St James the Apostle". The other Apostle James, James, son of Alphaeus is nearly always referred to as "St James the Less" in the Church of England. He gets few mentions in the Gospels and has to share his feast day, 1st May, with St Philip the Apostle. I would also go with "St James's Church" as in St James's Park, although "St James' Church" seems to be almost as common on Google. Alansplodge (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I will go with James, son of Zebedee, thank you. As far as James's, James'; Church, church goes. This is all getting too confusing. See also St George's Church, Little Thetford! I believe that "the church of St James" is correct; so is "St James' Church"; but also, so is "St James's Church". In this instance, I have since discovered the official website (as a result of St James' Church here) so I am sticking to "St James' Church" --Senra (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

how divorce will affect childern?

i want complete information that what are the effects of divorce on children —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samkhundmiri (talk • contribs) 10:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

the main one is that you will deprive them of a happy, long-lasting marriage of their own. "like father, like son", "the apple never falls far from the tree", etc etc. The truth is you are probably considering divorce because of money issues or other temporary hardships. Without exception every marriage faces that sooner or later. The people who don't know that you're supposed to ride that out are the ones whose parents didn't show them that. They are also the people who end up married five times. Instead of one marriage with five bumps and then a long golden period lasting for decades, they have five marriages ending at the first bump and are miserable for the rest of their lives. But, by all means, call a divorce lawyer: they will tell you, I am sure, the benefits of ditching the person you committed to. 92.230.234.222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC).

Our article implications of divorce could do with some improvement, but it does refer to a couple of studies. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The IP makes a lot of rosy assumptions. Let me make my own: what if the marriage is falling apart because of an abusive spouse? Do you really believe that the children would prefer an abusive parent to a divorced one? What if in their minds, sticking around in an abusive marriage makes them lose all respect for the suffering parent? Worse yet, what if, following the IP's logic, it turns the children into abusive parents eventually? It could be the case, as could the IP's scenario. Truth is, I don't know, and neither does anyone else here. Divorces have their way of having different effects on different people. Quite frankly, this question cannot be answered here - we're just a bunch of random strangers on the Internet and we have no way of knowing how this particular divorce might affect the children. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The response to this suggestion is now on the OP's talk page. (since it was removed from this page by Mr. 98 1 and 2)92.230.67.12 (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It is quite a stretch to assume a) that the OP is even considering divorcing their own partner (it could just as well be a homework question in from an "ethics" or "social science" class), and b) that divorce is inherited and always results in unhappy children destined to a life of unhappy and broken relationships. Consider this: perhaps a divorce from an abusive partner could be good for the children. Astronaut (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

My Google search for divorce affects children reported 1,240,000 results.—Wavelength (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

World War One and the Russian Revolution

WW1 ended in 1919, the Russian Revolution was in 1917. Did the Russians keep fighting in the war during and after the revolution, or where they not involved in WW1? Thanks 92.29.114.222 (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you read our article on World War I? The section named "Eastern front" answers your question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Just about the first thing the Bolsheviks did after the October revolution was to sue for peace with the Germans. The revolution was on 14th November (in the Western calender) and an armistice began on 14th December[8]. See the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Germans had put in a lot of work to facilitate Lenin's return to Russia. The armistice on the Eastern Front freed-up an extra 50 German divisions (more than half a million soldiers) to send to France and Belgium. This allowed the Germans to launch the Kaiserschlacht offensive against Britain, France and the US in April 1918. Alansplodge (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That's why some think it was more of a German imperial sealed-train putsch than a real Bolshevik "revolution" -- an impression that was reinforced by the fact that the Soviets refused to fight Germany, but were extremely eager and avaricious to seize great chunks of territory from Poland after others had accomplished the work of defeating Germany... By the way, the WW1 armistice was in 1918, not 1919 AnonMoos (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Another date thing for Alansplodge: The 1917 Revolution took more than a day, but the starting day is usually quoted as 7 November NS (= 25 October OS, hence the Russian terminology "October Revolution". Even if it had happened on the last day of October OS, that still only gets to 13 November NS.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite right JackofOz, my mistake. AnonMoos makes a good point; IIRC pre-1941 Soviet expansion was focussed on restoring the territory ceded at Brest-Litovsk and Versailles (ie the Baltic States, Finland and E Poland) but postwar (to be charitable) they just wanted a big buffer-zone that was under their influence. The fighting ceased on 11/11/18 but peace was not formally concluded until 28/06/19. (some war memorials in the UK are marked "1914-1919")Alansplodge (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

U.S. county borders

Resolved

Hello, I have a couple of questions about the borders between counties in the United States:

1. Are county borders that "look" (subjective, but bear with me) like they are based on a meridian or a parallel normally exactly aligned with that?
2. I presume that state governments were the entities deciding on borders between counties, but the article County (United States) does not say what criteria were used for that.
3. Also, the article does not say how borders are administrated. For example, the border with Canada is defined by the Treaty of Paris, but how does this work for counties? Are there official documents defining county borders and, if so, are these still in force?

As an example to partially answer 2 and 3, see page 40 of New York State's Local Government Handbook (http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lgss/pdfs/Handbook.pdf), which says "The first State Constitution in 1777...recognized the existence of 14 counties that had been established earlier by the colonial Assembly... All of New York’s other 50 counties were created by acts of the State Legislature." --Nricardo (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you in advance. 83.81.60.233 (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• (Q1) In short, no. Read more in Public Land Survey System and Survey township. East of Borschov 17:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

---

During much of the 19th-century, many people considered that the ideal size of a county was such that the great majority of farmers in the county could hitch up a horse-and-cart in the morning, drive to the county seat, transact some business there at mid-day, and then arrive back at the farm in the evening, without having to spend a night away from the farm. Of course, a number of factors could prevent this from being achieved in specific cases... AnonMoos (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

also (historically speaking) counties were defined pragmatically as regions that could be effectively maintained as a political unit (the name derives from the leader of some such units - i.e. 'Counts'), which usually meant they had to be large enough to be agriculturally capable of sustaining their population and a smallish military force, but small enough to be patrolled effectively by that force. --Ludwigs2 19:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

However, that's rather irrelevant to the United States, since counties/shires in England lost all real feudal autonomy long before English colonies were settled in north America... AnonMoos (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no: even though the feudal structure has disappeared, counties are still largely determined for the same pragmatic reasons. for instance, one of the reasons that counties in the western US are larger than counties in the eastern US is that changes in technology (railroads, telegraphs, improved firearms, and etc.) made it possible to have centralized administration for larger areas: thus, trouble with criminals, Indians, Mexicans, or the dreaded Canadians could reach county sheriffs, US Marshals, or military bases far more quickly, and they could respond more rapidly with more firepower. --Ludwigs2 21:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In American law, the county is a subdivision of the state and is controlled by the state. There is no requirement that a state even have counties or other subdivisions, although all do and most call them counties (Louisiana has parishes and Alaska has boroughs). Normally the counties and their borders are determined by the state legislature, which can create new counties or change the borders of existing counties by enacting state laws to that effect. The county borders, in other words, are set out in the state's laws (or, in some cases, in the state's constitution). The counties and their borders are determined in response to political and administrative considerations. The considerations described by AnonMoos are no longer important, of course, but they did affect the creation of many existing counties. John M Baker (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Political geography may give you some insight. schyler (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, this has already been answered well, but since it is a favorite topic of mine I will respond as well, by question number, 1-3:

1. No, I doubt there are any county boundaries that are exactly aligned to a meridian or parallel. The legislation that created any given county might have specified a meridian or parallel, but the actual boundaries were the result of surveys, which always have some degree of error--and in the olden days when most US counties were surveyed the errors were often quite substantial. Sometimes you hear about a county or state declaring that part of another county or state should belong to them because the original legislation decreed such-and-such a boundary but the actual survey was off by so-and-so number of miles. These complaints never go anywhere. What matters is the boundaries as surveyed, not as decreed. The same holds true for countries. A long section of the Canada – United States border was decreed to be the 49th parallel north. The actual boundary today is the one established by survey teams (from both countries) and the boundary monuments they emplaced. According to a blogger who researched this topic, the US-Canada border is defined by 11,501 separate boundary markers--and this for a boundary 8,891 kilometers long. The line segments supposed to be on the 49th parallel are on average about 1.8 kilometers long, and at each marker the boundary bends slightly north and southward. Furthermore, a great number of US sub-national borders were "decreed" in terms of the Public Land Survey System (PLSS), not explicit meridians and parallels. The PLSS system was based on principal meridians and baselines, which were usually defined as meridians and parallels (but again, did not follow them exactly when surveyed). As the surveying moved farther from the principal merdians and baselines the errors increased, in part due to the curvature of the Earth, and in part due to the compounding of errors upon errors as surveyors marked range and township lines farther and father from the principal meridians and baselines. There's plenty of info at the PLSS page. Suffice it to say that most counties in the US, at least after the PLSS system became standardized in the early 19th century, have borders legally defined in terms of PLSS townships and ranges, not actual latitude and longitude. The boundaries of US counties, states, and the nation itself, are the result of cadastral surveys, not the boundaries as decreed in the boundary-establishing legislation. In fact, I'm skeptical that there exists any national, state, county, or city boundary in the US that is "exactly aligned" with lines of longitude and latitude. All this said, county and state boundaries are often said to follow a single precise line of latitude or longitude. Our Colorado article, for example, describes the state's borders as 37°N, 41°N, 102°03'W, and 109°03'W. But the article goes on to point out that the actual boundary today is based on surveys, and those surveys had errors resulting in boundary "kinks". The article says they are "imperceptible", but I'd argue that their perceptibility depends on scale—how close in do you care? The kinks are quite perceptible at close scale, such as the Google Maps link from the Colorado page: CO-UT boundary kink.

2. Yes and no. Many counties were created by territories not states—and territories were were essentially under federal jurisdiction. Usually the size and boundaries of counties were repeatedly adjusted, well into the statehood era, but many of the boundaries today still date to pre-state terrotirial times. For example, King County, Washington was created in 1852 by the Oregon Territory legislature. It's original delineation was larger than today, but quite a bit of its present boundaries still date to the 1852 legislation. Lots--probably most counties in the western US were created in a similar way. You can view animated maps of county formation by state at this website. I linked to the Ohio page, but there's a menu for picking other states. The maps don't tell you how the boundaries were defined/surveyed, but does show how county borders changed quite a lot in earlier times.

3. I'm not sure what you mean by "administrated". The US-Canada border was defined (in part) by the Treaty of Paris (actually it was only vaguely defined and hammer out over many years via many further treaties and agreements). But the Treaty of Paris does not "administrate" the boundary. The agency that deals with the US-Canada border, not in terms of security, customs, etc, but in terms of where the border is exactly, is the [International Boundary Commission, or IBC. I doubt anything similar exists for states and counties, at least the the majority of the US surveyed under the PLSS system. The PLSS system was federal, and generally defined boundaries in pre-state, territorial times. That said, there certainly are official documents defining county borders, but they are not exactly "in force". Borders delineations are not based on documents but on survey markers in place "in the field"--that is, physical markers in the landscape are "in force", not the text of official documents. The surveyors placed boundary monuments and issued detailed reports that defined the boundaries. Unless I'm mistaken, the NGA, part of NOAA, is charged with keeping track of survey monuments of all kinds. The NGA is probably the agency in charge of "administrating" cadastral boundaries in the US—although local issues would be handled locally, using survey marker information from the NGA. But I'm not totally certain about this, and things may be more complicated in reality. Washington state and its counties, as far as I know, do keep track of the survey markers and resulting boundary lines, but they basically use information acquired from the NGA. In any case, most county boundaries have been established for so long, and counties have largely been filled in with parcels based on the PLSS system, there is not a great need to administrate the boundaries. Foe example, I live a block from a county boundary. The boundary runs down the center of a street. Whether or not this street is located exactly where the county-creation legislation said it should is irrelevant. Everyone, including local governments, know the road is the boundary. There's no need for boundary administration. If some boundary dispute does arise, where or elsewhere, and it is important enough for someone, or some organization to spend a bunch of money on, the matter would usually be resolved by having surveyors relocate the old monuments and calculate the boundary segments between them. In other words, boundaries at the county level are not administrated by any permanent agency, but rather by courts as the need arises. The situation might be slightly different and more complex in the pre-PLSS eastern part of the US. I've noticed that some counties lines in states like Tennessee are described as "indeterminate". But in most cases it still comes down to survey monuments.

Okay, that was a long reply, but I'm a sucker for this topic. Pfly (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Long, but very helpful. This all started when I noticed on Google Earth that the northern border of Tipton County, Indiana was not exactly "horizontal". (It's off by about 5 seconds, which is a hundred yards or so.) In my naivety, I kinda assumed that, to use your example, the borders of Colorado are defined in terms of coordinates, instead of by physical markers. So, by "administrated" I meant to refer to official documents containing such coordinates. (Off-topic, but I think the borders of the territorial claims on Antarctica are defined in terms of numbers (degrees). If not, I pity the poor sods who had to survey those.) Thank you! 83.81.60.104 (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC) (OP with different IP)

Hugo metaphor

I'm teaching foreign literature this semester, beginning with French literature. I need to formulate a metaphor or simile that upper-middle and upper class English-speaking students can understand for the dominance Hugo's work, most notably Les Misérables, holds over French literature. This needs to be a cultured and refined metaphor and NOT something like Victor Hugo's work dominates French literature like Li'l Wayne dominates neo-hiphop rap fusion (or something like that) or like Stephenie Meyer's work dominates the Teen vampire romance genre! I also don't want to use another literary metaphor, so not something like Shakespeare dominates English drama. I was thinking about using a classical music reference (i.e., the loudest or most noticeably part of a symphony/orchestra) but am open to other suggestions. Any ideas? 76.229.157.110 (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Are we talking American students, British students, students in Australia, South Africa, Hong Kong...? Accessible metaphors are going to vary according to cultural and racial makeup. If you're looking for a metaphor that also captures the sense of his relationship to French literature, that's more restrictive. Beethoven would probably be the closest analogy (he was considered "THE" composer that everyone else was compared to). You could also pick up on someone like Adam Smith (who wasn't prolific, but whose ideas dominate modern economics) or someone like Da Vinci or Michelangelo who redefined their art form. hard to say more without knowing more, however.

There's always the famous quote "Victor Hugo, hélas!"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

From "upper-middle and upper class English-speaking students", I'd assume either American students or that there is some reason social class is relevant. Or is that why they want it to be a 'cultured and refined metaphor'? In which case, I worry. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Simply because comparing Victor Hugo to Madonna (entertainer) or Anne Rice would probably cause France to launch a nuclear strike on the Wikimedia servers in Florida. That wouldn't be so bad in itself, but there's a chance they'd miss and hit Barbados, and that would cut off our main supply of rum. Think of the consequences, man! --Ludwigs2 21:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles? to me, that's classical! Rojomoke (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The IP geo-locates to Wisconsin, US. I've heard "upper class" used to refer to seniors in high school as well as to describe a social class. So the OP's meaning isn't clear to me. I don't see why it needs to be "cultured and refined" since these are still kids, no matter what scholastic/social class they're in. They'd probably understand the Madonna or Beatles reference well and also identify with it better than Michelangelo or Da Vinci. Dismas|^(talk) 02:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What about the dominance of Balzac? How "dominant" is Victor Hugo anyway? As dominant as Verdi over Italian opera? And what would that mean?--Wetman (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This strikes me as very strange. You speak as though Hugo's "dominance" in French literature is akin to something like that of Dante in Italian or Tolstoy in Russian, which is certainly not the case. Les Miserables, while popular, is certainly nowhere near the summit of French literature, as per an academic consensus - as George Steiner has summed the issue - "(Hugo's novels), for all their festive glory, (...) do not really lay claim to adult attention." Flaubert's Madame Bovary more or less invented the modern novel and in that sense is dominant in terms of form in both French prose and that of the world at large. I also can't imagine anyone claiming that Hugo is "more dominant" than Proust or Balzac or even Racine (moving out from the territory of prose). The Rhymesmith (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Les Misérables is to French literature and free speech is to American politics, as Bordeaux is to fine wine or Leonardo da Vinci was to just about everything else. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Les Mis is influential, yes, and near the center of the popular French canon. But I strongly dispute "dominance". (Which, perhaps, was your point, given that none of your examples are "dominant" in their areas.) The Rhymesmith (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

August 16

related by marriage

the wife and i have a child her sister has a child that would be cousins, my sister has a child that would make mine and my sisters child cousins,how are my sisters child and my wife sisters child related would that make them cousins horozontaly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rougher bob (talk • contribs) 02:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

They could think of each other as cousins, but they are not related by bloodline, only by marriage - UNLESS you and your wife have a traceable common ancestor. For example, in the 19th century and prior, marriage among cousins was common. So if you and your wife are first cousins, then your wife's sister and your sister would also be first cousins; which would make your child and your sister's child first cousins to each other; your child and your wife's sister's child first cousins to each other; and your sister's child and your wife's sister's child second cousins to each other. Got that? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Your sister's child and your wife's sister's child are not "blood" first cousins in the usual sense (i.e. both descended from a common grandparent). I don't think that there's really a usual or accepted name for this in English, but it might possibly be considered a kind of "step"-cousin relationship (i.e. substituting a marriage link in the first ascending generation in place of common ancestry, which is also the difference between a sibling and a step-sibling)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Cousin's cousin would be the neatest and most accurate way of putting it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Carrier Strike Group: the exclusion zone

When a U.S. Carrier Strike Group is in the high seas (red or green), how large is the self-enforced surrounding area where no unauthorized ships and airplanes may enter? -- Toytoy (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

link between Octavia Hill and Frederick Leighton

Does anyone know how these two were linked?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.207.148.180 (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, they were close contemporaries, and both were somewhat prominent in London society, so they could well have been acquainted. What reason do you have to think they were more specifically linked? Quiz question? (87.81 posting from . . .) 87.82.229.195 (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Octavia Hill and Frederick Leighton were both connected with The Kyrle Society, according to the results I got from searching on Google. 92.15.27.110 (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Husband/Wife teams in politics

Are Sonny Bono and Mary Bono Mack the only husband/wife pair to hold the same national political office? And before someone mentions them as an aside, I know about James Carville and Mary Matalin. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 10:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, President of Argentina, is the wife of former (and preceding) president Néstor Kirchner. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Still on Argentina, Isabel Martínez de Perón replaced Juan Perón, her husband. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 11:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and you may wish to include Catherine II of Russia, replacing her husband, Peter III in circumstances that separate it from, say, the joint then single reign of William and Mary. I am, of course, assuming you mean internationally rather than just the US. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 11:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The first that came to mind were Senators Bob and Elizabeth Dole. Picking random examples from the Category:Spouses_of_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives gave me Elizabeth Hawley Gasque who succeeded her husband Allard H. Gasque. Another couple is Bill Paxon and Susan Molinari. I'm sure there are more in that category and there is also Category:Spouses_of_United_States_Senators. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sonia and Rajiv Gandhi, both were President of the Indian National Congress. I guess it's debatable whether that can be counted as a political "office" though. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Mel Carnahan and Jean Carnahan come to mind. Also the Aquinos from the Philippines. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Careful with the last example: Corazon Aquino was never Senator and Benigno Aquino, Jr. was never President. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're counting state governors, there were George Wallace and Lurleen B. Wallace. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A little further afield, Solomon Bandaranaike and, after his assassination, his widow Sirimavo Bandaranaike, were both Prime Ministers of Ceylon. Sirimavo was the world's first female head of government; she was in power when Ceylon changed its name to Sri Lanka. Their daughter Chandrika Kumaratunga also became President of Sri Lanka. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Margaret Chase Smith became Maine's member of the U.S. House in 1940, succeeding her husband who had died in office. She was the seventh woman to serve in the U.S. Senate, but seems to have been the first elected to a full term. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Olympia Snowe & John R. McKernan, Jr., and Edward Mezvinsky & Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, among many other congressional pairs. The Rhymesmith (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we're going below the national level, Bob and Ann Cryer have both been MP for Keighley. --ColinFine (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Persian 'Ustad' (teacher)

Do Persian Jews still use the world Ustad to refer to their Rabbis? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Expulsion of the moriscos

Were the moriscos also expelled from Portugal as they were from neighboring Spain? --Belchman (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the details. Philip II was king of Spain and (later) also of Portugal (where he ruled as Philip I). There was a serious Morisco Revolt during his reign. The rebellion was crushed and the survivors were expelled. I presume that they were also expelled from Portugal. Flamarande (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Car used for bombing FLQ

What was the name of the car that was used by the FLQ to kill the Quebec cabinet minister Pierre Laporte? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.150.73 (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but here's a picture of him in the trunk: [9]. It was disguised as a taxi, so something taxi-ish, one assumes. --Sean 18:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This site [10] says it was a Chevrolet. The link has a clearer picture from the side of the vehicle that could help car buffs identify the make and model, but it looks like an Impala circa 1968 to me. --Xuxl (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I also found this forum thread [11] that claims it was a 1968 Chevrolet Biscayne, the tail lights being the main distinguishing feature. --Xuxl (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

more than dual citizenship

Is it illegal to have more than two citizenships? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.150.73 (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Depends entirely on the countries involved, but if they allow more than one citizenship then there's usually no restriction on three or more if they qualify. I know someone who was born in Northern Ireland and thus automatically has British and Irish citizenship, who has since naturalised as a Belgian citizen... -- Arwel Parry (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you identify this picture from my poor description, please?

My girlfriend has a stunning print on her lounge wall, that neither of us can identify. All I can do is say it looks Leighton-esque, as the luxury of the fabrics and skin tie in with Flaming June and other works, but it's not shown on his gallery here, nor in google images.

It's a sultry picture of a youngish lady, in a silvery gown, with a slightly blue sheen, wispy drapes of lace etc, sitting upright on a pale blue and silver banquette, which is visible behind her, and ending to her right. She faces us, although looks to the viewer's left shoulder, and has both arms up, seemingly clasping her blonde hair, which is tied back, behind her head.

All in all it smacks of Lord Leighton and his kin, and is definitely a quality image of that era - but I know nothing more, as I can't find anything like a signature.

I'm hoping you all can help... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theediscerning (talk • contribs) 17:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you upload a photo to Flickr or some other photo hosting service and post us a link? Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Stray cow problem in India

What could be reason for such stupid superstition ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Ascton (talk • contribs) 18:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

From the article: "The main cause of this problem is of course the religious belief among Hindus that cow is a sacred animal and under no circumstance should be killed." Or is there something else you had in mind? TomorrowTime (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see you posted the same thing on the talk page as well. Perhaps a better way of putting your question would be: "Why is the cow considered sacred to the Hindu?", or is this not what you meant? TomorrowTime (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If that is the question, see cattle in religion. -- kainaw™ 19:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with the wording of the question and, also, the asking of it. Disagreeing with religious beliefs is perfectly acceptable, but there's no need to deride them as "stupid superstition(s)". Given the fact that the user asking the question created the article in question... The Rhymesmith (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's not clear to me (or to Richard Dawkins) why society has decided there should be a mandatory, vocal respect for all religious beliefs, when other sorts of beliefs (including moral beliefs) don't have the same stature. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The cattle in religion article mentions the religious reasons. The background for why these came about is here, though I don't know if it's a reliable source; cows were made unkillable because cows were valuable, and had to be saved from ritual sacrifice to save money. So it says. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have it on good authority that in Europe many homes are infested with African Wildcats, and that the natives feed and pamper them. What could be reason for such stupid superstition? Or maybe posing such a loaded question is an example of ethnocentrism? --M@rēino 19:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

How about rodent prevention? Googlemeister (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"I knew he was a Commie because he didn't drink"

Where did the old stereotype that Communists don't drink come from? I thought the Russians were known for...um...warming up on a cold winter day with a shot of vodka, if you get my drift ;) 76.230.150.36 (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have only heard that line as, "I knew he was a Commie 'cause he didn't drink Duff Beer", from the Simpsons episode "Duffless". In that context, the joke was more about advertisers willing to say anything to sell a product. But if the phrase pre-dates that Simpsons episode, then I don't know. --M@rēino 20:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• • "Commie" was thrown around for exaggerated effect, in the old days, the way "Nazi" is now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

WWII

I was recently listening to a speech given by Hitler in 1939, where he stated quite rightly that it was England that declared war on Germany. What he went on to state is what I would like to question. He said that England attacked Germany but that Germany being a peaceful nation did not retaliate for several weeks. So my question is, who fired the first shot in WWII, and, assuming it was England, how long was it before Germany made a retaliatory attack on England or English forces. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Germans fired the first shot of WWII, not on England or France, but on Poland. England and France had told them before hte invasion that if Poland was invaded a state of war would exist between them.--178.167.247.172 (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• That speech could also have been part of the German follow-up to Operation Himmler. In what seems like an exercise in absurdity to modern mindsets, the German government actually ran a very thorough propaganda campaign to convince people that for some reason the Polish armed forces had attacked Germany, and Germany was just reacting in self-defense. Foreigners were not fooled, but since the German government had a strangle-hold on the flow of news, they actually were able to confuse their own citizens about the truth. --M@rēino 20:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

France finally told Germany that it would be war if Germany invaded France's ally Poland. Germany went ahead and invaded Poland, and then when the French delivered the declaration of war to the Germans, the Germans excitedly said "Then France is the aggressor." The French diplomat said: "History will be the judge of that." Source: Memoirs of the Second World War, by Winston Churchill, which I recommend as a readable history of the war. But which I obviously don't have at hand, or I would be specific and not use the lame descriptor "diplomat". Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Han shot first schyler (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for treating me like an idiot. I know Germany invaded Poland and was prewarned, and thus England declared war. That was not my question. You input was appreciated but misdirected, I want to know who attacked first between England and Germany, and if England, how long was it before Germany retaliated against England with an attack on English forces. Sorry for the sarcasm at the start but so often I see questions on here that are answered by various people going off on a tangent and discussing vaguely related topics. Thanks again