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

September 10

Colard, Belgium

Somewhere near Liege [1]

Is it a spelling error? can anyone find it.Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a Colard-Seraing labeled at 50.6074°N 5.5192°E / 50.6074; 5.5192 on Google Maps, right next to what appears to be a coal mine labeled with the name of the company in question. Deor (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And entering "Chaussee de la Hulpe" in Google Earth points to the railway station at

50°47′41.82″N 4°24′30.13″E, with the street to the east. Rojomoke (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, it must be Colard-Seraing .

Resolved

Roman Admiration/Adoption of Greek Culture

Why were the Romans so strongly influenced by Greek culture? They conquered countless people (including the Greeks in the Battle of Corinth) but no other culture seemed to have an impact quite like the Greeks. Why didn't the Teutons and Cimbris in the Cimbrian War have a similar influence? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would they? To the Romans, the Teutons and Cimbri were barbarians. The Greeks were much more advanced. The height of Greek civilization occurred when Rome was a village of wooden huts. There were Greek colonies near Rome, and they had laws, literature, architecture, technology, even something as simple as an alphabet. It's the same reason the Germanic and Gallic tribes later copied the Romans. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

TheFutureAwaits -- The Romans were also significantly influenced by Etruscan culture... AnonMoos (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And some of the original Greek influence came indirectly through the Etruscans (who were also rather backwards compared to the nearby Greek colonies and were just as impressed by them as the Romans were). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

THe Romans respected the Etruscans and the Greeks because they were civilised.
Sleigh (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

On of Rome's two prominent foundtion myths was that it was founded by Greeks. Besides the more famous "Romulus and Remus" myth there is the story told in the Aeneid, that Rome was founded by the defeated Trojans after the Trojan War. While Virgil popularized the story, Aeneas's story was already counted as a popular founding myth of Rome. --Jayron32 02:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Aeneas did not found the city of Rome; he settled in and/or founded Lavinium, while his son founded Alba Longa. AnonMoos (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

QI

I was watching an episode of QI on Dave and they said that in Katanonian Christmas scenes with jesus and the manger, there is always a man in the back dedicating? Is that true? My google searches have revealed little evidence Minky543 (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you mean "Catalonian" and "defecating", they might have been talking about the Caganer (see article). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(Beat me to it!) I remember the QI episode, yes it is the Caganer in Catalonian nativity scenes. DuncanHill (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Decking the halls, though not with holly

Holy shit! —Kevin Myers 14:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

[2] Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Thank you. I'll be here all week." —Kevin Myers 14:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please help: My husband doesn't understand me; I have PTSD and was sexually abused from age 2-12

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We were married 1 month ago. My husband wanted to look me over, naked, after I asked him not to and told him I needed to wear something. On our wedding night he still insisted and I let him because I felt like I had to, but I felt like I was out of myself and all of my desires for him, sexually, fell completely aside. He takes things personally even though I have explained to him what happened to me. To his credit, He did take time to read to me from the Bible the book of Song of Songs and explained that they had to be looking at one another in order to make the descriptions they made. One night he continued to play with my nipples after I asked him to stop and because I guess I was set back to being like I was when I was a child, even though I was giggling while I kept saying no, I held my breast tightly all night to keep him from me and the next day when I felt myself again, I told him that no means no no matter what and he was offended. I'm not very good at explaining things to him, either, esp., since he said I talked to him as if he was a child. After we took a couple weeks off (Help was there due to a bladder infection) and so that we were not expecting me to have any sex and we agreed that I would be the one to initiate things after our intrastate move was over (me in a new state with him)I finally felt comfortable and interested in having sex one night, then he began touching me and asking for sex the next morning after waking me up and I had a head ache and the sun was even hurting my eyes. I reminded him of that pack we made and he appeared to me that he was offended again, which seems to me like he distances himself from me. Is there a book / article out there somewhere or something that he can read to help him understand me? I pray so hard for some help here, because he is a very good man and I love him very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brokenwoman78910 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia can not give medical (including psychological) advice. please consult a psychologist (your personal physician may be able to recommend one). --Ludwigs2 14:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Typically, a psychiatrist (a doctor) is consulted, and not a psychologist (a scientist). Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought this the last time somebody (Ludwigs?) appeared to confuse the two professions; but then I read the "Contrast with psychiatrist" section of psychologist, and wasn't so sure any more. 213.122.55.221 (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You should seek advice from a Psychiatrist or therapist. They will be able to help you far better than random people on the internet can Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Congress ratification of treaties

U.S. Presidents have a nice tradition. They may sign an international treaty and leave the houses not to ratify it. The prime minister or premiere of a parliamentary system country always belong to the majority party. Will they treat treaties with more honor? --Toytoy (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Australia was a party to the kyoto protocol for many years without actually ratifying it. Seperation of powers in parliamentary democracies means that, just like the US a treaty has to get through the houses of parliament. Often treaties are signed for diplomatic reasons then not implemented or implemented poorly for local political reasons. 124.171.201.251 (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

But our beloved Aussies finally ratified KP. Only the U.S. still fails to ratify it. Well, 2012 is coming soon ... -- Toytoy (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a matter of honor. Probably the most famous example is the US Senate's failure to ratify the League of Nations treaty; Woodrow Wilson was an enthusiastic promoter of the League, made it a centerpiece of his policy, and toured the country to try to raise support; but Wilson's opponents in the Senate were able to defeat the moves to ratify the treaty. Was Wilson dishonorable to sign the treaty? That's nonsense. However, there's something far dodgier under US law: see Medellín v. Texas, in which it was ruled in 2008 that a treaty has to be "self-executing", or else it's not actually binding domestic law, even if it was ratified by the Senate. Hopefully all future treaties will be phrased to be "self-executing" before being signed by the President and then presented to the Senate for ratification. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Wilson probably could have got the League of Nations treaty through, if he had been willing to accept a number of statements of reservations and limitations that Congress would have attached to it. As for the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the thing is that it was the US federal government which signed and ratified it, but in the vast majority of cases its obligations are binding on the individual states (not on the federal government itself) -- and under the U.S. constitution, the federal government cannot directly order state governments to do things which fall into the sphere allocated to the authority of the state governments (only the federal courts can do that). The most the congress or president could do is cut off some federal law enforcement funding allocated to the states to supplement state budgets (something which would be politically unpopular, and might not have the desired effect). AnonMoos (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

One clarification: only the Senate is required to ratify treaties in the U.S. The House of Representatives gets no say in the matter. See Treaty Clause. —D. Monack ^talk 22:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Victim of fanaticism - Search for a painting

Dear Wikipedia editors,

We have a deep interest in the Ukraine painter, Nikolai Pimonenco, and spacific in his painting "victim of fanaticism".

We sow on the entry "History of the Jews in Russia" the painting with a little explanation about it, and we want to know if you know more about it, and spacific - which museum does it presents in.

Thanks a lot for your time and you efforts,

Aviv ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.151.40 (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, it is located in the Kharkiv Art Museum. Here is some more info. I couldn't find it on the museum's own website, but maybe someone else can. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia his name is Mykola Pymonenko. I've linked to Wikipedia's image of the painting -- the File page contains some information about it, but I can't read most of it. Looie496 (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

From the look of the clothes it looks like a poor vilage inhabited by eastern european jews. The young woman is probably about to be cast out of the village for getting pregnant while not being married or for having an affair with a married man. I recommend reading the book Chłopi, which earned Władysław Reymont a Nobel prize in literature if you are interested in such eastern european, village climates. 87.207.53.174 (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Berlin pre-war buildings

I am interested in knowing how many pre-World War II buildings exist today in Berlin. I read that only Goring's Air Ministry building survived the Allied bombings and Russian shelling. Could somebody please confirm this? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean 1933-1945 buildings, or pre-1945 buildings generally? -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

see Detlev-Rohwedder-Haus --Bgfx (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The monument to Catherine The Great is intact in the centre of the Main Street: Unter den Linden, ending then in the Brandenburg Gate, seen by me in 1969! MacOfJesus (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you keep going past the Brandenburg Gate, the next thing is the Reichstag building, which dates from 1894... although, as the article says, it was seriously damaged and was out of use for decades. But the original poster said "How many buildings?", not "Which buildings?" Perhaps this was a request for statistics, not for a list. --Anonymous, 21:40 UTC, September 11 (speaking of damaged buildings...), 2010.

If I were to do that, then, instead of going through Check point charlie, and suffering constant survalance, I would not be here now! Then, was the height of the Cold War! (Statistics usually begin with a list of some sort, I think.). -- MacOfJesus (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

gov.

i just put up a post on her titled gov. where is it its gone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjohnson357 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed it. It had nothing to do with humanities. You have been warned about asking questions in the wrong place several times already. Looie496 (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

thi is the gov section. you are a vandal. i will put it back up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjohnson357 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This is Humanities, not what is the New York department for environmental conservation laws? -- kainaw™ 18:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

its under politics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjohnson357 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As we do not have a "what is the New York department for environmental conservation laws refdesk", either of humanities of misc would seem appropriate for the question, to me. I'm uncertain what crusade Looie496 is on, but suggest he or she is misguided. Neither did he or she have the good grace to alert the OP to the removal of their question. That's just rude. Finally, in the event that Tomjohnson357 is a troll - and I know of no evidence pointing this way - then at best he has had a very good feed indeed, which still makes the removal counterproductive. WOuld it not have ben as easy to give a one line answer, such as "your congressman" or other legislative assembly representative? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

i agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjohnson357 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, the answer is that New York State has multiple governmental agencies with responsibility for environmental protection or conservation, and links to them are available here. Particularly relevant to the question, of course, is the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. John M Baker (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

gov 2

who can i write to to complain about oil paint being outlawed in ny? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjohnson357 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The New York Department of Environmental Conservation (stated above). -- kainaw™ 19:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

they didnt outlaw it though —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjohnson357 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The State Assembly would have passed the law, so if you want someone actually responsible for passing the law, you would contact your local assemblyman/woman. If you want someone responsible for enforcing the law, you would contact the agency named by Kainaw. --Jayron32 01:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

De-sanctification of Barbara?

According to the article titled Saint Barbara, she "was removed from the liturgical calendar of the Roman rite in 1969." No source is cited. I seem to recall that a long list of saints were removed from the calendar simultaneously at about that time. Was this one of those? Is there any account of that event in Wikipedia or elsewhere on the web? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: I'd ask about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism, since it could be accompanied by a suggestion that some information be added to the article, but it seems rare that anyone ever looks at that page. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You can read Paul VI's motu proprio on the matter, although he is referring to an earlier council decision (which I'm sure must be available somewhere too). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't know much about it, except that the most famous of the delistees was probably Saint Christopher... AnonMoos (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic calendar of saints#General Roman Calendar is relevant. Deor (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That particular motu proprio caused headlines in newspapers all over the world. There should be a Wikipedia article about it, and it should be linked from Saint Barbara and other such articles. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've created a stub article: Mysterii Paschalis. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

opening a rehab center

in order to open and run a rehab center what areas of knowledge should i major in university? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.90.159 (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Never having even been in a rehab center, I may be off a bit but my first thought would be psychology. Dismas|^(talk) 21:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It depends exacly what role you want to do. Running a rehab centre is more of an administrator/management job. Being closely involved with the clients needs more of a background in sociology or social work. Why not check out what qualifications are needed for jobs in this area? Here in the UK, The Guardian newspaper has good jobs pages for this kind of work (see here for example), but I'm sure there are sources of similar information in your country. Astronaut (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You might also find the article Qualifications for professional social work useful. Astronaut (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

More specific needed. Animal rehab center? Cleaning oil from birds wings and releasing them back into the wild? Or people rehab center for junkies? 14:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk • contribs)

What's the catch?

I received an email offer by the wording of:

“ Hello,

If you can spare 6 to 18 hours a week, possess some experience working on a computer and have an internet access, you can actually start working with us and begin to earn extra money. It is a part-time job and you can do it according to your own schedule. The job includes mostly survey completing and giving your opinion about different products. Everything you do, you do it online. All you need is just computer with internet connection.

If you are interested, contact me by my work email: <email removed> and I will send you further information.

”

When I replied asking how much it would pay, I got a templated reply directing me to a link which redirected here. Now, while the prospect of some money from this (although I highly doubt the claimed potential of $3-5k a month) seems desirable, something about this feels like it has a catch of some kind to it. What is likely to be the catch for participating at the website I linked? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There are many websites (SponsorPay and Super Rewards are two) that pay you small amounts to do surveys, although only small amounts. I guess if you were doing surveys really fast all day long for a month you would earn a couple of k, but most likely you only earn like $5 for doing many surveys. Often they don't even have surveys going. It's tedious and not usually worth it unless you want to spend it on say, a browser game, but there's no real catch: you do surveys and you get a small amount of money.--92.251.241.196 (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I should get a script going that will take the survey for me! Then I can be lazy and rich. Googlemeister (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Naturally enough they have measures in place against that, although I don't know what they are.--178.167.172.73 (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The catch is the low rate of pay: if you divide the amount you're paid per survey by the time needed to take the survey, you'll get something well below minimum wage. --Carnildo (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

September 11

One- and two-movement works for solo piano

Resolved

 – –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What "classical" names are there for one- and two-movement works for solo piano? I've seen the word prelude being used so much, I almost wonder if it's a cliché, or if it's been diluted of any definition now? On the other hand, suite seems to me like a collection of movements, usually on the larger end, like four or five movements. Are there any other words that could replace either of these two examples? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

PS - Humanities seemed a more appropriate area for this question than Entertainment... I would consider classical music to be more in the realm of literature and art than pop culture. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sonatas are normally three or four movements, but there are some examples of two-movement sonatas. Many sonatinas are only one or two movements. Prelude and fugue has been a popular combination, as has toccata and fugue. Single movement works can have many names, including: toccata, scherzo, impromptu, ballade, nocturne, fantasia, waltz, mazurka, polonaise, bourrée, courante, allemande, gigue, barcarole, rhapsody, rondo, study (or étude if you want to be pretentious, or etude if you want to be ignorantly pretentious), berceuse, passacaglia, chaconne, and all the names in Category:Dance forms in classical music and Category:Western classical music styles that I haven't mentioned here. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This is wonderful!! Thank you so much, Papyrus! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, Herman. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

singapore dollar notes

why isnt the president smiling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.217.220 (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Why should he?. I doubt you'll find any smiling portraits on currency; presidents and monarchs they like to show they're being serious. I often add the smile myself.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

But on modern English bank notes (the Scots have different ones), the Queen is definitely smiling[3]. On the Jersey notes, she manages a proper grin[4]. "We are amused" perhaps. Alansplodge (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

On United States money nobody looks all that happy. (Although Hamilton has a goofy look on his face. Could be a smirk.) APL (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Blonde stag film

Does anyone have idea when this Blonde stag film was shot? Was it in the early 20th century? Was porn legal at that time? --Galactic Traveller (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it is a silent film does not mean it has to be from the silent film era (i.e. before 1930) because amateurs kept filming without sound for a long time after that. Judging by the woman's hairstyle, I'd guess it is from the 50s or early 60s. Whether it was legal or not depends on what country it is from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the 1960s to me, probably USA. It is more modern than the similar films of Bettie Page. 92.29.119.29 (talk) 13:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you'd assume USA. I see no reason to justify that assumption. It could easily be European, even Latin American. The USA has no monopoly on blondes or fashionable haircuts. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

America produces most of the pornography in the world. It's laughable to suggest otherwise. "Pornography generates billions of dollars in sales in the United States......An estimated 211 new pornographic films are made every week in the United States." from Pornography by region. I suppose the US dosnt have much of a film industry either, or much of a military. Apart from that, my impresion is that in Europe porn was more illegal, more shameful, and hence difficult to distribute than it was in the US at that time. 92.29.119.29 (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The volume produced by a nation has no effect on the likelihood of any given specimen being produced in that particular nation. There is no reason to assume this particular one is American, and appealing to national rates or (assumed) local prejudices doesn't affect that. In any case, in the USA in the 1950s and so, it was very common for stag films to be made in Mexico, for example, where the enforcement of obscenity laws was far less rigorous than in the individual states, for example. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

By your reasoning, Hollywood is just a little cottage industry. 92.29.119.29 (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't be dense. What I'm saying is that if you found a random frame of a feature film lying around (not even knowing what time period it was), you couldn't assume it was probably "from Hollywood" just on the basis that many films were made in Hollywood. Similarly if you see a person with dark skin you wouldn't assume that they lived in Africa just because many people with dark skin live in Africa. You're just falling under the common logical fallacy of assuming that bulk statistics of a set tells you about the state of any specific item within the set. This is a common error in reasoning. You cannot infer about the individual only by looking at population statistics. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you can, in general, make such assumptions. It's called Conditional probability, and there a lot of statisticians who make big money doing things like that. No, you can't say that a film is for sure from America on the basis that America makes a lot of films, but you can (truthfully) say that it's likely from America. If you had more information about how many movies different nations produce, and how much of it is porn, you could put a specific probability on this movie being American. See also Bayes theorem. Buddy431 (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

But your error bars based on a small sample are going to be huge. If you were talking about a collection of items, sure — if we had a random bunch of pornography, we could perhaps generalize based on bulk rates. But on a single item? What does something "90% likely" or "40% likely" even mean, in a real sense, on a single item? Sorry, I think this is still a pretty basic error. Statistics of this sort works great if you are talking about lots of samples, but using that kind of information to talk about individuals within the sample is highly misleading. It's the classic quantum mechanics issue — you can know the half-life of a bulk radioactive substance but you'll never, ever, ever, be able to know when any specific, individual atom within that substance is going to decay. Any attempts to generalize from the bulk behavior to the individual in such a case is always going to be fallacious. Obviously one can generate numbers, but whether those numbers have any real meaning is a completely different story. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

According to you, if you have a bag filled with 90 blue beads and 10 red ones, then you cannot say what the colour of a bead drawn from the bag is probably going to be. Should I laugh or cry? 92.15.25.239 (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're drawing the bead out at random, sure, you can say a lot about what the pull of beads would be over a series of pulls. That's what statistics lets you do. But if I have that bag, and I tell you to tell me about the single one I have in mind, you can't assume that I've picked it randomly, and saying that there is a '"90% chance of it being blue" is meaningless, as it is a statement about the likelihood over the course of repeat pullings anyway. Perhaps you are not seeing what I am trying to say here (though I suspect you are just being dense on purpose), but my argument is that we have no reason to assume this individual film sample is "pulled at random" from the total sample of films in the world, and the 90% blueness of the beads in the bag doesn't have much to say about the one red one I have in my hand. Statistics gives certain types of information that can only be made sensible when interpreted correctly; using numbers without sense is purposeless. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be better just to admit you were wrong rather than continuing with this twaddle? Whether the balls in the bag or in your hand makes no difference. 92.15.30.158 (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It takes two to twaddle, my friend. My reasoning is right, in any case. The film didn't become American because of the percentages. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

|} Firstly, non-safe for work warning for anyone in a restricted viewing situation. Secondly, oorn has never been illegal (although arguably it should be) but the distribution of porn is what is illegal sometimes. Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't overgeneralize. The laws relating to pornography vary by region and time. In some places its creation and possession have been illegal. In the United States, there were state laws against the mere possession of pornography until 1969 (see Stanley v. Georgia). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mr.98 that there's no apparent reason to think that the film is American. The woman looks European to me, but your mileage may vary. From a technical standpoint, the most striking thing about the film is of course the use of a zoom lens. I'm no expert by any means, but I think that zoom lenses were not widely available for amateur 16mm use until the early 1960s. Without further information, I'd guess that the film dates from that time. —Kevin Myers 14:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The clip is from the Prelinger Archives (archives.org gives no date or location [5]), so I guess it's probably American. The scribblings in the beginning might be of help. I don't know what they're called. Not cue marks, but stuff written on the film itself, see the first thumbnail here. Maybe some forensic film buff can figure it out? ---Sluzzelin talk 15:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe it says, "Carol Barker-HD." No way to know if that's the actual name of the person, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems very 50s-60s, but something just doesn't quite sit right. The film quality seems extremely good - very smooth and detailed; typically when you see 16mm home movies from that period, the quality is nothing like that. Kevin Myers has already mentioned the use of zoom lens. Then there's the woman. I'm not an expert on hairstyles, but it seems cropped very short at the back. How long has that style been around? Hell, it's probably a semi-pro stag from the 60s, but the suspicious part of me thinks this movie is not very old at all and has just been made to look like an old stag film. Matt Deres (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

In Google search, I found this reference which says the film was made c. 1955 and the girl is Honey Harlow. --Galactic Traveller (talk) 03:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You win today's Google award. Good job! —Kevin Myers 06:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What would the Milesians of Irish mythology have worn at the time of their invasion?

I've gathered that they were apparently Spanish soldiers, telling from your own articles about the subject. From what I've been able to find on a time period, however, it would seem it was likely to have occured sometime around 50 to 100 A.D., which implies that at the time Spain was still under Roman rule.

However, I feel it is doubtful that the attire ascribed to Roman soldiers and civilians was entirely universal, as most of the internet would like you to believe. My basis for this line of conjecture is the distinct difference in attire between what is traditionally produced as Roman attire, and what is found when you search for British attire during the Roman rule. My source for the British Roman attire is as follows: http://www.fashion-era.com/ancient_costume/roman-costume-history-toga.htm

Also in the aforementioned source are good examples of what many view as typical roman attire. I would at least like a good illustration of what may be different between the 'traditional' Roman garb, and what a Spanish-Roman explorer (as in the Irish mythology would suggest the Milesians may have been, aside from soldiers) would have possibly been dressed in during this period. --66.189.24.40 (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on the Milesians, for a start - but you might be trying to make Irish mythology too logical. I don't think they were meant to be Romans. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's references that make it possible that the Milesians did actually exist, it's just that as a result of transliteration between the native language and latin, it resulted in the name Milesian, which I already gathered from the page for Míl Espáine, which is linked on the Milesians page. I've already sifted through the articles here, and I'm actually looking more for a possible idea of what someone of Roman-Controlled Spain might have wore, as opposed to what the Romans generally wore. The reason for this being that as the Wikipedia article explains, it could very well be a linguistic perversion of the latin phrase "Miles Hispaniae", or soldier of Spain, which again, I'm pretty sure for the majority of the time period that the Milesian invasion on Ireland appears to take place (sometime at least 150 to 200 years before 450 A.D.), Spain was Roman territory. Basically I've been making connections based off of everything I've been finding. My main reason for actually looking all of this up was mainly to find the origin of where the Milesians likely came from (figured that out) and from there, find out what people of that region at that time period actually wore. and again, looking at the differences between Romanized English garb and that of the traditional Roman attire, I'd find it highly unlikely for the traditional Roman attire to be universal throughout all of Roman Europe, save for Roman Britain.--66.189.24.40 (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Romano-British is the usual term; the English arrived a bit later. Alansplodge (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Update, seems I had my dates wrong, it seems more likely that the Milesians were in Ireland as early as 1300 B.C.. I revise my request, and ask for a good example of Bronze-Age Spanish attire. --66.189.24.40 (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Normal

Is "normal" whatever the majority does? If the majority put baked beans on their head, would it be normal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Growcress45 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sociologists don't define "normal" (or "norms") as just majority behavior, but as a series of social expectations within a given community. So what is "normal" for one group can vary for what is "normal" for another, and, importantly, just because something is done by the majority doesn't necessarily make it "normal". (So what is "normal" for graduate students to wear, read, and watch is different than what is "normal" for blue collar workers to wear, read, and watch. But on the other hand, just because everybody in a given community has children, there might not be an expectation that everybody has children — that is, it might not be "abnormal" to not do what the majority does.) But yes, social norms can be very arbitrary. I hardly see the firm distinction between wearing baked beans on one's head and spraying odorous Beaver sacs under one's arms or painting one's eyelids black, or any of the other multitudes of odd customs we take for granted. To quote George Bernard Shaw, "Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature." --Mr.98 (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Normal can mean any of the following:

• sociological/anthropological norms (as above): expected/allowed behavior/attitudes in a given societal context
• moral expectations: behavior/attitudes that are expected of a good person (differs from the above because moral expectations are supposed to be non-contextual, though a lot of people will argue there's no practical difference)
• psychosocial integrity: behavior/attitudes that are not physically or mentally destructive (usually expressed in terms of abnormal behavior).

take your pick. --Ludwigs2 16:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

An additional interpretation of the moral/social might be that moral expectations are cooked up in order to reinforce social norms. (Hence most moral expectations that are taken seriously don't fall too far outside of given norms, and the people who do actually take them seriously usually fall very far outside of most social norms, and become self-segregating religious communities, for example.) --Mr.98 (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A character in Larry Niven's Ringworld says "the majority is always sane". More seriously, some of the criticisms levelled against modern psychiatric practice (as expressed, for example, in DSM-V) is it that is claimed to medicalise hitherto normal human variation (this Harvard discussion is relevant). In the terms of your question, it doesn't change what is normal (it's still abnormal to have beans on your head) but it narrows the range around that which is considered healthy (that is, it reduces the number of beans you can have on your head and still be considered an eccentric rather than someone suffering from a mental condition that requires treatment). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 20:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, what some people consider normal and what others consider normal can differ wildly. Take the odious and grotesque practice (you can already tell which side of the fence I'm on) of wearing clothes that have had holes deliberately ripped in them. Who in their right mind would ever do that? That's just as weird as walking around with baked beans on your head. But people do it; well, some people do it. They've created their own peer-regulated normality. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, look at Tattoos. Perhaps as soon as 20-25 years ago, tattoos were quite rare; people who had tattoos were usually in motorcycle gangs or something like that. Now, everyone and their grandmother seems to have some sort of tattoo. What was originally a fringe sort of fashion has become very mainstream. Normal changes over time. --Jayron32 04:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

We even have an article on creeping normalcy. Not too much there, but there are interesting links to camels, frogs, and fishery. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This is actually part of a venerable tradition - it was part of Elizabethan fashion, or perhaps started earlier; decorative slits in clothes (admittedly not rips) represented, it's thought, that a man had been in a sword-fight (an unusually methodical one) and was therefore a bit tough and daring. 81.131.24.172 (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they were fighting with an Elizabethan Zorro. He always made his slits into a very readable Z. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It has traditionally been asserted by writers on heraldry (he weaselled) that the ornate appearance of the mantling - the cloth that covers the top of and hangs down behind the helm of an armoured knight - originated in its becoming tattered while in combat or by the general rigours of crusading, or was deliberately made to appear so. Recently, however, I have encountered the alternative theory that it stemmed from the same fashion that gave rise to dagged hems and fringes on garment bottoms, sleeves etc. - see 1400–1500 in fashion, which also traces the slashing described by 81.131 to an event in 1476. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Whatever the majority does" isn't really a good definition. Depending on how narrowly you define them, there are many things that are "normal" for anyone to do, but few people do them. For example, most people would say that stamp collecting is a perfectly "normal" thing to do. It's a bit dull even, but only a minority of people have that exact hobby.

You might argue that stamp collecting is a "hobby", and a majority of people have some sort of "hobby" and therefore all hobbies are normal. But that doesn't work either, because if you're really into pouring baked beans on your head, If you really enjoy studying the nuances of putting baked beans on your head, you could call that a hobby, but it's still clearly not "normal". APL (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

KIDNAPPING BUSINESS

WHY SHOULD NIGERIA BE SINGING ABOUT KIDNAPPING AS A CRIME WHILE THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD APPLY THE TECHNOLOGY THAT WOULD FISH ATHEM OUT AND OVERTHROW THEIR ABODES? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwokolopc (talk • contribs) 13:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

All the words of your question are spelled correctly but put together in that order, they don't make much sense. Can you better explain what you are asking? Dismas|^(talk) 15:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like something's going on over there, anyway. WikiDao (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

pre-1974 Coat of arms of Burma

Can anyone find an image of the pre-1974 Coat of arms of Burma, with the three chinthe? I had one when I was a little nerdlet in Kindergarden, from the 1970 World Book encyclopedia, but that was 35 years, 6000 miles and 17 garage sales ago. In addition, I am fairly sure there was one prior to the 1962 coup that was different. Yes, I have Google image searched, king-size bag o' nothin'. --Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this[6] any good? Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Sorry, That seems to be India!! Try again... Alansplodge (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think some of what you want is right here on Wikipedia, but under "seal" rather than "coat of arms". See State seal of Burma.

The coat of arms of the Union of Burma (1948-1974).

• 
  The coat of arms of Burma during the Socialist period (1974-1988).
• 
  The coat of arms of Burma [Myanmar] under the constitution of 2008.

I'm almost certain I have sharper versions in some of my old heraldry and flag books from the 1960's, but unfortunately I have no scanner or digital camera. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Godfather part I's language

What non-English language do they speak? Is it modern standard Italian language or Sicilian language? --Belchman (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was just Italian as spoken by Americans who don't really speak Italian. If it was really Sicilian it would sound so different from regular Italian that you would definitely be able to tell. The guy who played Michael's father-in-law (Saro Urzi) was Sicilian, but the girl who played Michael's wife (Simonetta Stefanelli) is from Rome, so I don't know if that means anything. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering this because there are parts that are undoubtedly Italian since I can understand the language to some degree, but there are others that just 'sound' Italian but I simply can't understand a single word. --Belchman (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's better than me! This site has a transcription of the whole movie, but the guy apparently doesn't know much Italian. But it does seem from the dialogue that Vitelli recognizes them as American from their accent, so that could be a clue. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

To add even more confusion, this claims "SOLLOZZO now begins in rapid Sicilian. MICHAEL listening carefully and nodding every so often. Then MICHAEL answers in Sicilian, and SOLLOZZO goes on. The WAITER occasionally brings food; and they hesitate while he is there; then go on. Then MICHAEL, having difficulty expressing himself in Italian, accidentally lapses into English."... Wow, what a mess :) --Belchman (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Anthony Burgess always maintained that there was no such thing as the Italian language, just a mass of dialects. DuncanHill (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Burgess is correct, historically; see Italian language. More to the point are our articles on Dialect continuum (how Italian in one part of the country sounds similar to that in the next door province) and Code-switching (using more than one language in a single interaction). BrainyBabe (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You guys don't really know what I'm talking about, but it's okay. Thank you anyway. --Belchman (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Italian/Sicilian one of those situations where people claim they are different "languages" but they are written the same? A Sicilian acquaintance born in the 1920's told me that Sicilian was written the same as Italian but had different pronunciation. I know that names ending in "-one" are pronounced with a long "E" at the end in some parts of Italy/Sicily [7], but a silent "E" in others (Like Al Capone. Probably the same language, but different accents or dialects. Edison (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, its not that simple. Remember that prior to the 1860's, there was no "Italy". See Italian unification. These things are hard to quantify, but the differences between Italian and Sicilian are probably greater than that between Parisian French and Langue d'oc and at least as varied as say, the difference between Castillian Spanish and the Catalan language. The article on Sicilian language shows the evolution of the language and the differences between Sicilian and Italian are great. Of course, there's the long-held addage that "A language is a dialect with an Army and a Navy". But, it isn't a simple as a few pronounciation differences. --Jayron32 04:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Or pronunciation differences, as we say in Texas. Textorus (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Precolumbian Civilisations

Was there any communication between the Middle American and Andean civilisations prior to the European conquests? The picture that's usually painted is of two separate centres of culture, the Incas and the Aztecs (and the Maya), in the middle of not much else. Rojomoke (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Metallurgy in pre-Columbian America discusses the development of metallurgy in Peru and its spread to Mesoamerica by 800 AD. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It would seem unlikely that there were significant sustained direct contacts (instead of mediated indirectly by a whole series of intervening tribes). And of course, the Inca empire only expanded into the area of the northern Peru coast and Ecuador in the decades immediately preceding 1492... AnonMoos (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There are some pretty daunting natural obstacles for direct, land-based contact between North/Meso-America and South America, even in modern times. See Darién Gap. It is possible that sea-based contact may have occured, I have not known that either culture had a strong sea-faring tradition. There may have been indirect contact of the type AnonMoos notes, for example there is significant evidence that, in precolumbian times, Polynesian peoples contacted such varied areas as coastal Peru and coastal North America. See Polynesian_navigation#Pre-Columbian_contact_with_the_Americas and Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact#Polynesians for some of this. --Jayron32 05:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Guns, Germs and Steel postulates that one of the reasons for Old World technological superiority over the New World was due to the New World's inability to communicate effectively across distances because of geographic barriers. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Date of creation

Many religious beliefs have a creation myth. I was under the impression, however, that Judaism (and by extension Christianity/Islam) was one of the few that set even a rough date on creation (e.g. 5770 or so years back by the Hebrew calendar; 6014 or so years back, if you follow Ussher chronology.) Is that impression correct, or are there other religions that put a specific date, or even an approximate one, to creation? (But let's exclude the linguistic trick of using a specific large number to refer to some unspecified large number.) Specifically, both Greco-Roman mythology and Norse mythology have creation myths, but were these placed at a specific time in the past, or just a vauge "a long, long time ago"? -- 174.21.233.249 (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The List of creation myths article gives a list of links to creation myths. But I haven't gone through them to see which of them has dates -- they're going to have to be the ones from cultures that also have a dating system, of course, so see also List of calendars. WikiDao (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Hindus are sort of known for having extremely long timescales associated with their stories (billions of years, which is actually comparable to the age of the universe). It's not specifically "creation" because they have a cyclic worldview, but I think that you can put a date on the last time Shiva destroyed the world, or whatever (I'm not that familiar with either the religion nor the time reckoning, so I'm sure someone else can come along and elaborate). You can try to wade through Hindu units of measurement, specifically for "day of Brahma". Here's another site about Hindu time measurements: [8]. According to this site [9], we're currently about 2 billion years into the current day of Brahma. Buddy431 (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

174.21.233.249 -- The creation dates in Christianity and Judaism have been arrived at by painfully adding numbers together in the Bible which were not really intended for the purpose of strictly consecutive chronology (the whole Book of Judges, for example), and often different numbers are found in the Masoretic Hebrew text as opposed to the Greek Septuagint text. That's why the date of creation has been set anywhere from 3760 B.C. (Jewish Calendar) to 4004 B.C. (Archbishop Ussher) to 5509 B.C. (Anno Mundi)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

But realise that Christianity as a whole, and most of the individual sects do NOT adhere to any chronology at all (some obscure small ones might). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A deeper meditation on Bible Truths reveals that that date is the instant where Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden. The time between the creation event, which was six "days," and The Original Sin is never at all specified. schyler (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

See the article "Chronology of the Bible". -- Wavelength (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Further to Buddy431 above: the Hindu cosmology has cycles of "creation" called "Kalpas" each of which consists of four periods of time called yugas. We are apparently about 5112 years into the fourth, or "Kali", yuga of this Kalpa. Adding that to the duration of the preceding three yugas gives 5112 + 864,000 + 1,296,000 + 1,728,000 = 3,893,112 years since the last creation-event, according to this system. 68.55.212.251 (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

schyler - No, the dating is based on that provided in Genesis, which applies to the period of time that Adam "had lived." Presumably he began living at his creation; that would be the normal meaning, and there's nothing in the Bible to suggest otherwise. John M Baker (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

See The Challenge of Creation for a nearly comprehensive review of Judaism's non-literal approach to biblical interpretation, supported by such great Medieval minds as Saadia Gaon, Maimonides, Nachmonides. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Bill Gates / Warren Buffet visit to China

Dear Wikipedians:

I read in a Chinese newspaper article that rich people in the States are avid to set up private charitable foundations to accomplish five-fold purposes:

1. To legally evade inheritance tax, which is 55% of everything over $600000.
2. To build good reputations for themselves.
3. To make sure that their offsprings will continue to get regular handouts from the private foundations they have set up after their passing away. Hence providing for their offsprings for the rest of their (offsprings') natural lives.
4. To prevent their offsprings from squadering away the fortune they have accumulated after they have passed away by putting leveraging controls in the hands of foundations' boards.
5. To let members of foundations' boards continue to impart values, advice and mentoring to their offsprings to make sure that their offsprings remain upper-class and stay in the elite sectors of American society.

The conclusion of the article is that the motives of rich people in the States setting up private charitable Foundations are not as pure as people would think. And that since Chinese rich people give away money to, for example, earthquake relief and such, without any expectation of remaining in control of that money, once it has given away, the Chinese rich people are more noble in intent than their American counterparts.

Is there any truth to this claim? Especially with respect to points 3, 4 and 5?

Thanks.

174.88.33.116 (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to suggest that any of the above (let's make it harder - all) do not apply to these 'Chinese rich people' you speak about? And do you have any evidence to suggest that rich people in the USA - without exception - do not give money towards disaster relief and such forth? If your answer to both of the above is 'yes', then your question is answered and need not even be discussed here. If 'no', then your question is answered and need not be discussed here. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

In answer to the question "is there any truth to the claim [that]... Chinese rich people are more noble in intent than their American counterparts:" You must first define what "noble" really means. Is noble in this sense a synonym of virtue? In that case I can use what I think I know. Virtue was the theme of The Western Philosophical Dialogue Meno. Being noble (virtuous) is considered "good," yes? Man, according to Western viewpoint, will always pursue what is perceived to be "good." That is, good for that particular man (or woman). To be noble, vituous, and good, is, therefore, to pursue what is in that person's opinion is "right" (Nota Bene: Greek for 'right opinion' is [orthe doxa], where we get the English word "Orthodox").
Therefore, American rich men are no less noble than Chinese rich men. schyler (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There are surely many cultural factors here. I expect that one of the reasons wealthy Chinese give away money is to gain face, which is not so much a factor for Americans. But in any case it would be nice to have some actual data on the amounts given away by Americans and Chinese, for comparison. Looie496 (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

An interesting thing is this study which came out recently which compares countries by the number of people who have given money to a charity, or time or helped a stranger. Of course it's difficult to compare people in diffirent circumstances. It's likely to be more difficult for someone who is struggling to survive to donate money to charity then someone who lives a resonably comfortable life. It's likely to be more difficult for someone who works 60-80 hours a week to give time to charity then someone who works around ~40 hours a week. This also doesn't attempt to compare amounts, which may not seem entirely fair but also raises issues of itself (do you compare by GDP? average income? etc). It also worked by surveys I believe which as we've discussed before raises issues of itself. So of course even the authors don't claims it's some sort of end all comparison [10]. But still an interesting read IMHO. Nil Einne (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. 174.88.33.116 (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess I was not being very clear in my original post. What I meant was that often in China one would hear Chinese social critics comment on the largesse of rich people in Western societies and accuse the Chinese rich people of being selfish in only wanting to pass on their riches to their offspring. But if the five points I have raised in my original post, especially points 3, 4, 5, are true, then it shows that rich people in Western societies are not really that much above Chinese rich people and are setting up private charitable foundations only to pass on their wealth to their offspring in a less direct, more covert, way in order to avoid the hefty inheritance tax, but are passing their wealth onto their children in nearly its entirety nonetheless. 174.88.33.116 (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

My first reaction to this is, why are you taking Chinese propaganda seriously? (Especially since it just happens to point out how great the Chinese are, what a coincidence!) Of course we are guilty of the same kind of thing; what do we ever hear about China, except how unsafe its industries are, or how polluted the air is, or how much lead paint they put into the toys they export to America? Clearly America is industrially superior. Or something. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Aren't both things potentially Chinese propaganda? Is there any reason why it's okay for the OP to take one more seriously then the other? Is Chinese propaganda which says the Chinese are bad okay but Chinese propaganda which says the Chinese are good is not? In fact to be blunt it seems to me the OP actually doesn't want to take either propaganda seriously. They've heard both pieces of propaganda and don't know how much truth there is to either one so have come here (whether it's the best place or not) to find out Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Nil got it right with the "In fact to be blunt it seems to me the OP actually doesn't want to take either propaganda seriously." I come from a natural science and engineering background, where there is only one right answer and the absolute truth. So I feel very uncomfortable with social science, where it often comes down to an "us vs them", it's either the Taliban's viewpoints or the NATO's viewpoints, it's either the East's viewpoints or the West's viewpoints. I am always looking for a neutral, third party perspective that reflect the absolute truth on a social or world issue, but alas, that does not seem to exist in the social sciences, in stark contrast to the natural sciences. 174.88.33.116 (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Or is it the case that there ARE NO aboslute truths in social sciences? And that all I'm going to get is one perspective versus another? But I still don't see how anyone could possibly see things like female genital mutilation as a positive thing, or could even THAT thought of mine be a product of the years of education that I have received in the West? So that our typical African people can somehow reason FGM out to be a positive thing? (Horror/shudder at the thought) 174.88.33.116 (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You will find people in the social sciences who are absolutists (female genital mutilation is always, unequivocally bad), and relativists (female circumcision is performed for reasons which seem perfectly normal and reasonable to those who practise it). And there are endless debates about whether relativism or absolutism is correct, so there is no neutral perspective, even about the debate about perspective. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your question is incredibly simple...sometimes. Some rich American's are giving their money away for the reasons described, some will not. Some will be giving their money away out of virtue and care for others (perhaps even a sense of duty due to their upbringing). Similarly rich people in China giving money will be sometimes the same and sometimes not (though their tax law may differ and so that reasoning might be mute). There is countless evidence of American's giving money to disaster relief funds (e.g. Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake#List of donors) where they'll not get any money 'back' or can't necessarily 'control' how that money is spent - doubtless there is the same for Chinese donors too. ny156uk (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Some rich American's....what"? Forgive me, just doing the rounds of idiotic pedantry. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That rich American must be the Bill Gate's referred to below. :) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

To specifically address the people mentioned in the title, it's true that Bill Gate's has put a lot of money into his own charitable foundation (and one can speculate as much as one likes about his motivations), but Warren Buffett has pledge most of his fortune to the Gate's foundation where his family would presumably have no control over it. I'm also pretty sure it's illegal for people to siphon money out of a charitable foundation, even if they run the foundation, even if the money was once theirs. That's not to say that no one ever does anything like that, but people also go to jail for it. In the US, if you want to ensure your kids get your money when you die, the most effective way is to just give it to them. There's a pretty significant estate tax but 45% of $50 billion is still a lot of money. Rckrone (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks every one for your $0.02. I feel more enlightened now. 174.88.33.116 (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder whether part of the confusion here is that the writers of article you mention don't understand the difference betweeen a trust and a charitable trust. Many people do set up trusts for a reasons relating to tax avoidance, protecting their assets, ensuring their heirs can't just squander the money away, etc. This is definitely the case in NZ (in NZ particularly with the relationship law as it is and also because it's a useful way to avoid asset testing which can come in to play with some forms of government support) and I'm pretty sure in the US.

These trusts aren't charitable trusts and no one claims they are. They are mostly limited by what the trust documents say and are usually set up with the inherent intention of providing for the beneficieries (which are likely to be their heirs of the person who set them up or the people themselves). See also Trust (law).

In many countries, you may also set up some sort of charity e.g. a charitable trusts which may get special income tax exemptions. But these are a different beast and there are usually laws which regulate what they can and can't do (at least if they want to keep their tax exemptions). While I'm not saying the people who set them up are all doing it out of the generosity of their hearts, and they probably can to some extent be used to provide a comfortable lifestyle for the person who set them up and perhaps their heirs, you can't usually AFAIK just set up a charity which would provide for your heirs, and only your heirs. See Charitable organization for example of the regulations governing them in a few countries.

Of course laws do vary from country to country. IKEA is an example often noted as it's owned (well it's a little complicated, read the articles) by a non profit foundation, the Stichting INGKA Foundation which was/is? sometimes considered the largest non profit in the world, something that emerged due to debates of the size of the Bill & Melinda Foundation. It has been claimed the Stichting INGKA Foundation was primary set up for tax avoidance and anti-takeover protection.

As an interesting aside BG III's father, who wasn't a poor person before his son, was/is supporter of some form of estate tax.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

September 12

Lady of Mann

Have the spouses of the Lord of Mann ever used the title Lady of Mann other than Elizabeth de Vere, Countess of Derby who was Lord of Mann? Also how about the title of Queen of Mann? See List of Manx consorts for wives of the rulers of Mann.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Charlotte Murray, Duchess of Atholl did in an order to the officers of the Island: "I, Charlotte, Lady of Mann and the Isles, Baroness Strange, with consent of the Honourable John Murray, of Strewan, my husband." (An Abstract of the Laws, Customs, and Ordinances of the Isle of Man, ed., With Notes (on 'The Supposed True Chronicle of the Isle of Man'), James Gell, vol 1., 1866, p 103). ---Sluzzelin talk 07:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

For a discussion about the title Queen of Mann, see[11]. Alansplodge (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Differences

Why are there such extremes between people? Some are extremely nice, others are horrible and once step away from punching you in the face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KAELLKTPIN (talk • contribs) 13:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Read things like Nature versus nurture - there's arguments about how much of our behaviour is 'learned' (nurture) and how much is 'inherent' (nature) for a start on 'why' people turn out different. ny156uk (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the people who are extremely nice may not be extremely nice all of the time, and the horrible ones might have better days. The circumstances under which you meet them probably matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You could also look at personality type and personality psychology. Looie496 (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It helps not to describe people as "nice" or "horrible" or anything in between, based merely on their observed behaviour. It's the behaviour itself that can be so described. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A very "nice" neighbor, all smiles and friendliness, turned into a snarling asshole when I asked him to remove a tree which was likely to fall onto my house. Do not be deceived by appearances. Edison (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point. People's behaviour varies. We've all done bad things, but does that mean we're all bad people? No, it doesn't. Who we are (whatever that is, and it takes more than a lifetime to find out) is not the same thing as what we do. That neighbour is no more an asshole today than he was a nice person yesterday. Criticise his behaviour if you need to, but deciding that he himself is an asshole is not your right, because you don't even know who you are. (Jack of Oz =) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Amendments to the US constitution

In what sense is the word amendment used in regards to the amendments to the US constitution? I understand amendment to mean change. Were the amendments contained within the Bill of Rights changes or additions? Was there an original US constitution which was changed and added to? What brought about the amendments contained within the Bill of Rights? Shouldn't the people that drafted the original US constitution have thought to have included them?

I've tried to read the articles on Wikipedia, but with little success. The articles are written, quite understandably, from an americentric point-of-view. They assume that I should be au fait with the basics; but I'm not! The articles become quite heavy, quite quickly. As an Englishman, I would really appreciate some help. Don't forget: K.I.S.S. Thanks is advance. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Basically they drew up the Constitution (the one with Seven Articles that explain how the government works) and ratified it by 1789. Then some people said, "this isn't enough, we need a Bill of Rights!" So the Bill of Rights were drawn up as Amendments to the original Constitution, and these were ratified and went into effect by 1791. United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Background is the relevant section. The distinction between "changes" and "additions" is not really relevant here; they are both, in a sense. As for whether they should have thought to include them, well, there was a long debate about that. The Constitution in general says, "here's what the government can do." The Bill of Rights on the other hand is more along the lines of "here's what the government cannot do." There was strong disagreement about whether the powers of the government should be defined positively or negatively; the Constitution (positive powers) + Bill of Rights (negative powers) was a compromise, of sorts. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Perfect; I love it! Thanks for your time. You hit the nail on the head. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As to this question, "Were the amendments contained within the Bill of Rights changes or additions?", there was some disagreement about this when the Bill of Rights was adopted. Some initially believed that amendments were changes to the Constitution, and so the original needed to be reworded to reflect these changes. But in the end it was decided that it would be impractical to rewrite the original document every time an amendment was passed, and so amendments have always simply been tacked at the end of the Constitution as additions. These additions often change or invalidate earlier language, but that earlier language is traditionally not removed from the original. Instead, editors usually use brackets, italics, footnotes, etc. to indicate that an amendment has made the original language obsolete. —Kevin Myers 17:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

One correction to Mr.98's description. The Bill of Rights wasn't an afterthought that was first discussed after the original Constitution was ratified. It was a central part of the debate on whether to ratify the Constitution at all; see the "Background" section of United States Bill of Rights. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That article is a bit convoluted; I can see why the original questioner requested clarification. It really needs a rewrite. The article also downplays the varied agenda of those who advocated a bill of rights. Some wanted a bill of rights to protect individual rights, as the article says. But there were many, like Patrick Henry, who supported a bill of rights merely as an expedient to block adoption of the Constitution. George Mason gets credit for being a "Father of the Bill of Rights", but his primary motivation was not the promotion of human rights. (This is a myth, according to a recent biographer.) Instead, Mason used the bill of rights issue to oppose the Constitution because he feared that a strong central government would have the power to abolish slavery, a possibility that he, like many wealthy slaveowners, greatly feared. —Kevin Myers 19:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Pretty ironic then that both the constitution and the Bill or Rights were ratified and then later his exact fear was realized. Rckrone (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That which we resist, persists. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not irony! He suspected that if the constitution were ratified, slavery would be abolished, and then exactly what he suspected turned out to be the truth! That's the opposite of irony. APL (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

A fascinating aspect of the "original constitution" is the signing statements various states included with their ratification letters. Various states ratified but with some reservations, which in some cases would fit right into today's controversies, or those at the time of the American Civil War. I can't find the collection of communications from the various states which ratified the constitution in 1788, but some were quite libertarian, others were wary of the government asserting the right to seize and hold or to assassinate citizens without process of law as the US government presently claims the right to do. The wariness of various states would be consonant with the views of many Tea Party or progressives or civil libertarians today. Edison (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Because the Federalists, led by Hamilton, Jay, Madison, Washington, won the political battle, the impact of antiFederalists is downplayed. The newly formed states refused to ratified the original Constiution without an express bill of rights. The idea was debated during the drafting of the Constitution. James Madison argued strongly that all the rights and liberties specified in the basic Constitution included the civil rights and liberties later amended. The battles on the state level are very interesting. The Bill of Rights truly originated from the people more than a political elite in Philadelphia. I find it sad that almost every college educated American is familiar with the Federalist Papers. The entire story includes the local ratification conventions at the state level. Many patriots who fought bravely during the Revolution opposed the U.S. Constitution on liberty grounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to supplement what others have said, while I don't think the wording has been changed (there are "typos" in the constitution; there was a West Wing (TV series) where Toby says he found one in the constitution...) there could be a distinction made between the Bill of Rights' general additions, and other sections that expressly modify certain sections. For example, the 17th Amendment directly changes Article 1 Section 3. Similarly 12th changes Article 2 Section 1. Others, like the 11th, change the Court's interpretation of the constitution, but don't specifically apply to any section (this could be said for the Bill of Rights too).

The fact they don't blackline change the constitution is not as strange as it might first appeal. Codification is a specific and intentional process: most laws aren't ever codified into a specific code (like the U.S. Code). Shadowjams (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Der Prasident Des Landesbezirk Baden Heinrich Kohler Weihnachten 1947 1948

I have two plates dates 1947 and 1948 with this exact writing on them. Upon doing much research, I learned the history of Baden and a bit on Heinrich Kohler.

I am trying to find out whom made these decorative plates, which are very large in size. There are crests (designs) on these plates but I am not sure if this indicates whom the maker is. The front of each decorative plate I have been unable to match to anything I have researched. I would be happy to attach photos if allowed. Perhaps someone can give information of point me in the right direction. Maggyscratch (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Just to help other readers, we have an article on him at Heinrich Köhler. DuncanHill (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Photos would certainly help. Have you looked for marks on the back? Looie496 (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You may want to contact an antique or antiquities dealer in your area. There are people who specialize in these sorts of things, and its a very small group of people. This is the sort of thing that you'd want to be directly appraised by an expert, rather than research yourself. --Jayron32 02:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of the back will be more useful than pictures of the front as far as identification is concerned. There almost certainly won't be any identifying marks on the front. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

is it still rape after the murder?

I now yous not loyers, but hypotheticly is it still rape after a murder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.49.133 (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. 86.133.63.196 (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

can culd you be more Specific? what if you wait and how long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.49.133 (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I take the question to mean, if a man murders a woman and then has sex with her dead body, would that constitute rape? The answer is that this will depend on the criminal laws of the specific place where it happened, so it's not possible to provide a general answer. It might be a different crime such as "committing an indignity to a dead body". --Anonymous, 20:25 UTC, September 12, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.76.104.133 (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As a non-legal opinion; at some point what you've done is so heinous that it's likely death penalty/life imprisonment. You can't really put someone in the electric chair twice...--Jayron32 02:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Necrophilia#Legality does not currently provide information about this hypothetical action taking place in Germany, but it's probably similar there to what is described for other places. WikiDao (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Those answering this question appear to be under the assumption that the question is asking if it is rape if the same person both murders and has sex with the corpse. The question literally asks if it is rape if a person has sex with a corpse that happened to be murdered previously. This is nothing more than a question about necrophilia, which WikiDao answered as best as we currently can. If anyone has a better answer, he or she should add references to the necrophilia article. -- kainaw™ 05:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems unlikely to me that any legal system would consider sex with a dead body to be "rape". There are probably laws against it, anyway, but that wouldn't be the heading they'd come under. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Culture of poverty traits

Oscar Lewis wrote: "In the introduction to The Children of Sanchez, I listed approximately fifthy traits which constitute what I call the culture of poverty." What are the traits he listed please? Is a list of them available on the internet anywhere? Thanks 92.15.30.158 (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You can read the introduction online on the Amazon page for the book as part of its "Look Inside" feature. I didn't see a systematic, numbered list of traits, but the introduction itself does contain lots of observations sprinkled through it. I was able to read the whole thing online. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Painting based on Petrarchan conceit

I'm trying to find a painting which matches this description: a portrait of a woman based on various Petrarchan conceits taken literally (e.g., the metaphors used in Shakespeare's "my mistress's eyes are nothing like the sun"). So her cheeks are literally roses and her eyes are sunbursts. I would at least like to know the title and artist's name, if the image isn't readily available online. 68.123.238.146 (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Giuseppe Arcimboldo is most famous for his portraits in vegetables, though he did at least one, Flora, in flowers. Did the portraitist you are searching for actually use the sonnet to which you refer, or was it just "something like"? Bielle (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall that the artist referred to a specific sonnet, just that the painting was based on these poetic metaphors in general. 68.123.238.146 (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

September 13

American Citizenship

Hello everyone. I'm interested in various colleges but I will need scholarships. However, I am a (mainland) Chinese citizen holding permanent residence aka a Green Card in the united states. My question is, how much will my scholarship opportunities be limited by my citizenship? Is this more or less at a better college (i.e., Ivy League). Additionally, what are some drawbacks if I at the end choose naturalisation? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC) [EDIT: REWROTE UNCLEAR INFORMATION]

As a general rule, there are plenty of private scholarships available, as well as special programs for international students. I'm sure other people can flesh this out in more detail. 61.7.120.132 (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

For your second question: If you take out U.S.-based loans while in college, such as Federal Student Loans, you must pay them back if you remain in the United States. If you return to China, U.S. law does not apply. While the U.S. would like you to pay back the loans, they cannot force you to or deduct what you owe from your wages. -- kainaw™ 05:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The statement "U.S. law does not apply [in China]" is a gross oversimplification of a very complex legal situation. China will probably not extradite you, but we can not interpret your particular legal situation. Nimur (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that such loans are made by banks, not the government, and the bank would be very interested in your willingness, and ability, to pay back the loan. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Federal Direct Student Loan Program handles a majority of student loans in the United States and it is backed by the U.S. Department of Education, not a bank. -- kainaw™ 13:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Are those loans available to foreign nationals though? Googlemeister (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I know many foreign students who have Federal loans. -- kainaw™ 14:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are relevant links: you must file a FAFSA application and determine if you are an eligible non-citizen. Kainaw's point about "skipping the country" may have legal ramifications; the debt is not "forgotten" just because of non-payment. There are easier ways to "get out of paying" - there are many programs to forgive or cancel some or all of the debt, subject to conditions. Nimur (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If you leave the country without paying your loan and return to China, as has been stated, you probably won't be extradited back to the United States. Should you ever apply to return there, though, you can expect a less than friendly welcome. As Nimur presents above, it's not the best option and you'd be better off paying off your loan even if you return to China. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  18:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You also asked about getting citizenship yourself, which I don't think has been answered. Typically, it's (relatively) easy for foreign nationals to get visas to go to school in the United States, but much harder to get work visas (and eventually citizenship) after they're done with school. Sometimes you'll hear complaints in the United States about us helping give foreigners a good education, but then not benefiting from it because we ship them back home after we're done. Do you have a specific reason why you think you could become a citizen after you get your degree (have close family here, for example, or have a lot of money to start a business)? Buddy431 (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I should have clarified. I am not a foreigner or visa student, I am a Permanent Resident ie holder of a "Green Card". Would this change anything? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Why tax capital gains less?

Why is capital gains tax in the United States lower than normal income tax? Has the effect of this on the actual progressiveness of federal taxation, or on class mobility, been studied? NeonMerlin 01:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Basically because of risk. If you make money on your investments you pay taxes, but if you lose money afterward, you don't get your taxes back. You can average your gains over multiple years, but there still is substantial risk. For example, right now I personally have paid several thousand dollars in capital gains tax over the past few years and have less money than I started with. Looie496 (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The article says "Capital gains are generally taxed at a preferential rate in comparison to ordinary income. This is intended to provide incentives for investors to make capital investments and to fund entrepreneurial activity." --Sean 15:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Biography Request

Hi, Wikipedia,

My professor and I have hunted all over for this bio on Robert Loring Allen was apparently educated at Harvard in the 40s, probably putting him in his '80s now if he is still with us. Quite a mystery about why we cannot find him. I did the searches as well, and only called on you when I knew my skills were quite inadequate for the task.

Also, can you ask the library to find a short bio of Robert Loring Allen. He was the biographer of Joseph Schumpeter. His 1991 book on Schumpeter, "Opening Doors" (Transaction Publishers) is the classic in the field but I can find nothing about Allen any place. See what you can find out. Thx. D

Richard N. Foster, Ph.D.
Senior Faculty Fellow
Yale School of Management
Assistant: Camille Costelli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.33.95 (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, they wanted a sort bio, here it is:Robert L. Allen --Aspro (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That (Robert Lee Allen) is obviously not the same person. Robert Loring Allen is mentioned on a WP-banned site, from which we at least know he was Professor Emeritus of international economics and economic history at the University of Missouri, and is now deceased. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What is that WP-banned site? (Is this what it feels like to be a North Korean?) 84.153.184.12 (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It will probably come up if you search for <"Robert Loring Allen" Missouri> Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it a spam-blacklisted site, or something...? (Does it sound like a warrior-woman, or a river, maybe? Strange). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPB. Anyway, the same (minimal) information is here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed email artifacts per WP:REFACTOR. Astronaut (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Philanthropy

Why do actors, singers and other public figures practice Philanthropy? Do they truly want to help the causes they support, or are they just doing it for public relations? No she can't read my poker face (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Since each actor, singer etc is an individual, you will find a spectrum, where some give because of true support, and others give simply for a tax write-off and to look good. Googlemeister (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Philanthropy article would be the place to start. It has links to other articles, external sites and books to read. It is a big subject. The Greeks had a word for it - the same one we have - and the Roman great and good operated on the principle of noblesse oblige. Modern philanthropists have come up with arguments as to why it is a duty to be philanthropic, which don't tend to be so hard-nosed as the Romans were: Andrew Carnegie's The Gospel of Wealth for example, the idea of venture philanthropy or philanthrocapitalism for another. Start with the philanthropy article and you can make your own mind up. But ultimately April Lavigne is the only one who can know for sure why she's giving her money away. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

OP, are you sure it has to be either one or the other? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that many charitable donations are tax deductible as well. If I had a lot of money to spare, I might find it more convenient to spend my tax quotient on specific organizations that I thought would actually do much good with it than put it into the general pool of government to be diluted and siphoned off for all sorts of typical bureaucratic nonsense (or wars, or other things I didn't support). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Poker_face -- Geoffrey Miller's book The Mating Mind has some interesting speculations about unconscious motivations for charitable efforts... AnonMoos (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember also that Philanthropy doesn't necessarily have to involve giving money. We Wikipedians donate our time to help the cause of human knowledge. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Irrational attachment to prior investment

After having written on the Computing desk about "the psychological principle in which people become irremediably attached to their previous investments of time and money", I have to ask what this principle is called, and whether we have an article on it. The context was one reason why there has been such an acrimonious divide between Windows and PC users, but the principle was also cited by Brian Reynolds of Zynga on why people keep coming back to play FarmVille every day: Their 700 mouse clicks and 10 minutes of "game" time per day are remembered at some level as an investment, and there's a psychological impetus in lots of people to keep working on their farm every day, in order to validate the previous investment. Note that despite the title of this question, I'm not really asking about money investment, but the investment of time and effort. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It relates to sunk costs. 92.15.4.94 (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

See Psychology of previous investment. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

See Escalation of commitment as well as Lock-in (decision-making). Looie496 (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ethics - are they universal or only species-dependant?

Is it ethical for a Barn Owl to kill and eat a Field Mouse? I know that vampires are fiction. But if we were vampires, would it be ethical for us to kill humans for food with a clear conscience? 92.15.4.94 (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Read the article on Ethics and dig through the references. The short version: for the actions of any creature on earth other than humans, ethics are an irrelevancy. To act ethically requires sentience, which (as far as we know) only humans possess. A barn owl killing and eating a field mouse is just a barn owl being hungry and doing what it does. A lion killing and eating a human is a lion just doing what it does. Vampires don't exist so it doesn't much matter, but the question there would be whether or not one is an intelligent and sentient vampire or merely a human-shaped animal who eats blood. → ROUX ₪ 20:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Ethics of eating meat may illuminate, a little, but your two questions differ quite a lot, because your first question is about what rights are possessed by a nonsentient nonhuman mammal, and the second is about the rights of a human. The default moral and legal stance in most places these days is that animals enjoy essentially no rights, except, again in most places, for the right to not be abused outrageously by humans. The quick answer is that, no, vampires would not have the right to simply kill humans for food, because over the past millenia humans have created ethical systems in which humans have a special place: they are not to be slain. (Except in a few rare circumstances like extreme cases of self-defense or capital punishment.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If self-preservation is at stake, then True Blood offers one way out for the Vampires: a "synthetic form of blood called "Tru Blood"'. Roux is correct about the owl, and you sort of answered this yourself in one of the versions of your question, by specifically asking about an "ethically-aware lion" before you removed it [12]. The lack of ethical awareness in owls and lions didn't stop us from the occasional animal trial in the past though. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. If an animal is smart enough to act in a manner which deceives a human to achieve some end of interest to the animal (say, food), is that merely the animal being an animal—or because it involves a human, the human feels lied-to and that the animal has used unethical means to achieve an end? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you, but the animal doesn't get a break just because it doesn't take ethics into consideration. When humans find beings that are outside of human ethics (like lions), what they do is either confine them or shoot them. What we cannot reason with, we treat as wild, and that isn't so hot for the animal. (A tangential article: Great ape personhood, the question of whether great apes should be treated as less "wild" and more "human" than most other animals.) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ethics requires meta-cognition (abstract reasoning - what should a creature do in a given situation). Animals (outside some of the higher mammals like chimps and dolphins) do not show signs of meta-cognition of this sort, and not even all humans are good at it. --Ludwigs2 22:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The answer is very much dependent on the type of ethical system that you're applying - unfortunately, ethics isn't clear cut. For example, teleological ethics, such as utilitarianism, isn't so much concerned about the actions as the outcomes. Thus the death of the field mouse (or the person) isn't the issue so much as the amount of good and "evil" that results from the action. In the case of the owl that may be difficult to calculate. In the case of the vampire, it may be that killing many people to keep one vampire alive would be on the wrong side of the equation, but that would depend on a number of factors.

To further Ludwigs2's comments, one thing that might help is Tom Regan's distinction between moral agents and moral patients. According to Regan, animals and people may both have inherent moral value based on being subjects-of-a-life, but this doesn't mean they each have the same responsibilities to act morally. The owl is not a moral agent, so there is no expectation that the owl will spare the field mouse. I have no idea where vampires sit, but if you assume that vampires are capable of ethical reasoning then I guess they are moral agents, while if you take the Buffy approach (disregarding Angel) you might want to argue that they are merely moral patients. - Bilby (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to add that, ultimately, ethics are merely snapshots reflective of their society. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad bird! BAD bird!! You better stop eating that mouse or you'll go to Hell! Hey, why aren't you listening to me?! Looie496 (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ethics aren't even universal across human cultures, or even individuals within one culture let alone species. Googlemeister (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Mosque near 9/11 grounds

Wouldn't that be breaking the amendment of Freedom of religion in the United States not to allow them to build it? 98.21.135.69 (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, it's a cultural center and not a mosque. So it is not breaking the amendment. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but anyone who is opposed to it apparently thinks it's literally a mosque and that it will literally be on "ground zero", so it is still an issue of freedom of religion. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Despite the US's First Amendment, one very limited way that various local governments can lean on religious groups is zoning. The city might say "Sorry, a mosque doesn't fit into our urban master plan, so your permit is denied." However, I found this 2008 link from "Christianity Today" informative; it points to a federal law that apparently requires that "religious assemblies and institutions" must be treated by zoning laws and regulations the same as "non-religious assemblies and institutions" under zoning laws. So if a theater or community center would be allowed under the zoning laws, the city or county isn't allowed to deny a permit to a church. Or mosque. Looks like it's controversial, though; this NY Times link mentions several dozen challenges involving the law as of 2002. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This whole issue will abruptly disappear after the elections (except for a few fanatics) so it doesn't pay to get too invested in it. --Ludwigs2 00:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The odds are that if they were going to deny the permit, they'd have to deny an entire class of other (secular) institutions to be there as well, otherwise they'd face a pretty strong chance of a lawsuit. It certainly goes against the spirit of the First Amendment to vehemently argue that Muslims can't congregate in that particular space (and raises other troublesome practical questions — would it be OK if they were 500 ft away? 1000 ft? A mile? How close is too close?). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As a New Yorker who lost a college classmate on 9/11, there are several things that need to be set straight:

• The center, which as I understand it will include both a mosque and interdenominational places of worship, is 2 blocks away from the northern end of the World Trade Center site. There is a strip club that is only one block further over, nearly as close to Ground Zero as the center/mosque. No one is complaining about naked breasts being wobbled about by strippers dancing on the graves of those murdered, although the center/mosque is described as Islamic extremists gleefully dancing on the graves of their victims. Two or three blocks away in the canyons of downtown Manhattan is like a mile away in middle America, and is far enough away that visitors get lost. In fact, I'm regularly asked for directions by people who are completely lost who are no more than a block or two away from their destination.
• There are numerous places of religious worship downtown right in the middle of all the rest of the commercial properties. The center/mosque is no different.
• Behaving as if Islam globally has been hijacked by extremists is the same as contending Catholicism and Protestantism were hijacked by Irish terrorists at the height of the conflict there—or do I need to remind people of the annual parade celebrating the victory (slaughter) by one set of "Christians" over another set of "Christians." (And see my final point on excuses.)
• If it were not for Islam, which historically has been a religion of enlightenment, all the ancient works which we now associate with Western civilization would have been lost forever. It is up to those of us who are NOT of Islamic faith to reach out to support mainstream (note I am not saying "moderate" as if it were some minority) Islam. To NOT do so is to fuel the small number of extremists.

Let's not pretend that every religion, every society, doesn't have its extremists looking for excuses to pour lighter fluid on the fire, shouting "YOU made me do it!!" I appreciate the pain of those who lost family and friends, there is no New Yorker I know that is more than one or two degrees of separation away from someone who died that day—or, who, by the grace of their God (or dumb luck for the atheists) happened to not be there that fateful day for some innocuous reason. But to allow anti-Islamic rhetoric to win is to only lessen ourselves. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

All good responses; unfortunately, I don't think Sarah Palin is listening.

Anyway, OP asks if it would violate Freedom of religion in the United States if the Park51 Islamic community center were not allowed to be built because Islam might get practiced there (and it is close to ground zero). Answer: yes, it would be a violation of religious freedom. So, it could not be legally prohibited in the U.S. on that basis. And as the Park51 article points out, "Most Americans and residents of New York State do, however, believe the Park51 developers have a legal right to proceed with the project." WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The part about "Ancient Islam conveyed lots of vital ancient works to the west, therefore we should support modern Islam" isn't a good response. Ancient Islam isn't modern Islam, religion had a completely different relevance in the ancient world, and it's not clear that religion even helped back then, just because it happened to be the case that their enlightened society of the time had a religion (whoopee-doo). You might as well say we should revive Roman religions because the Romans were quite scholarly. 213.122.59.149 (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

They also didn't save all the works of western civilization; some Greek scientific texts were copied by them, but Greek science wasn't all that great and sometimes an adherence to ancient Greek medicine (for example) was actually a hindrance to progress. A lot of Greek texts were preserved by the Byzantines, who never lost them. Anything that was in Latin was usually preserved by the medieval west (including some early translations of Plato and Aristotle). It is true that some things came to the Latin west through Arabic translations, but not everything. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The transmission of Arabic works (some original, some translations from Greek) to Western European culture was fairly significant, but it was kind of a time-limited episode (12th-century etc.) -- by the 15th-century, Western European scholars had an overwhelming desire to dispense with such middlemen and go back directly to the original Greek sources, and they were deeply interested in whole areas which had never been translated into Arabic at all (such as ancient Greek belles lettres and history. AnonMoos (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't forget the destruction of the library in Alexandria, as the result of which (my understanding is) there are ancient works preserved only in Arabic translation. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Are there? The Library was destroyed in the fourth century, long before the Arab conquests. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There once existed a real ground zero mosque, a space for muslims to pray on the seventeenth floor of the south tower of the WTC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

We're getting sidetracked. The original question was if a mosque would violate the First amendment's Establishment clause. The answer is contained in our article on that topic, but the general response is that the establishment clause only applies to government action. The government isn't trying to put in any kind of religious center, private parties are. Shadowjams (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the question was if not allowing it would violate the First Amendment. DuncanHill (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This issue was touched upon when the governor offered considering a property swap for state land elsewhere downtown further away. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I misread the question (a little confusing). Nevertheless, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment article has the answer. It's a question of equal access, etc. Shadowjams (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

September 14

Buying yourself out of the British Army

Our article Billy Bragg says:

After a few months, he bought his way out of the army for £175 and returned home, having finished his training, but not joining his regiment.

How does (or did) that work? A little Googling didn't help a lot; I found this British Army page that mentions "PVR Premature Voluntary Release", but there are no details, and we've no Premature Voluntary Release Wikipedia article. Our British Army page doesn't mention it. Can anyone point me to details? Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The first Google esult for 'premature voluntary release' [13] (also in Bing but not quite so high up) has some details on this possibility in the modern day army context as well as other possibilities for release. The second result has a few details for the air force [14] and also on other possibilities of how one may be released from service at different stages. Nil Einne (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

did this guy get fired?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWjSOVDyUJ4&feature=related

cops do what ever they want and NEVER get FIRED....they always get some bs re-assignment and keep the same exact pay....now the guy doesnt even have to go on the streets anymore and he's still getting paid... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj650 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Pogan, the police officer in question, resigned from the force. He received a conditional discharge from the court. See [15]. He may have got off lightly but he didn't get off. He lost his job and a conditional discharge is still a criminal conviction. Exxolon (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an odd incident, though. I wonder what ticked Pogan off? You can clearly see that he picked out that cyclist a good bit down the road - he let a few other cyclists go past to get to that particular guy. --Ludwigs2 20:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Conflicts involving Critical Mass#2008 bicycle rally and [16] has what appears to be the cop's defense. Note that he was cleared of assault, the charge he was convicted of was of falsying a criminal complaint in arresting the cyclist. Nil Einne (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that police never get fired is not true. It is true that they often do get what look like fairly reduced penalties, however. (And when this guy "resigns" on his own account, you can be sure that was determined by the guys at the top.) In general, policing the police is a difficult task. But there have been a number of cases like the one you've indicated where the prevalence of easy digital video (e.g. on cell phones) had made it much easier for hold police accountable for their actions. I seem to recall the New York Times having a big article on this awhile back; the general consensus is that this has been leading to some major shifts in police behavior, since it no longer is a "your word against mine" sort of situation. The difficulty with the videos, and what is probably in part responsible for the relatively light sentences, is that they fail to convey in most cases the broader context of the police activity. You see one minute of footage out of a much longer event, edited down to the explosively violent parts. It's not too hard for a good defense lawyer to say, "well, unfortunately you're not seeing the part where the victim brandished a weapon" and so forth. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Another technological factor is that police cars in many jurisdictions are now equipped with video cameras (that's how we got to see how one of the 9/11 hijackers was stopped on a routine traffic matter a few days or weeks before their attacks). In theory this should serve several different purposes: documenting police conduct or misconduct, documenting a subject's conduct or miconduct, adding to the evidence for a good or bad stop or arrest (e.g. for drunk driving), and deterring misconduct. But the field of vision, usually out from a police car's windshield, can be limited, as can be the duration of taping relative to the whole time taken up by an incident. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

September 15

What other countries elect their president via an electoral college?

Some time ago, I asked what other countries aside from the US have an electoral college. I got some good responses, but not the answers that I would have liked, especially about electoral college elected presidents in other countries. For some time now, I have been wondering what other countries aside from the United States elect their president via an electoral college or a similar committee. I am not sure if the US is the only country that does so, although I know Hong Kong's leader is elected by a committee, although I was thinking of independent countries that elect their president via an electoral college. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

According to our article Indirect election, there are several countries in which the president is elected indirectly, most commonly by the parliament: Germany, Italy, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, India, and Israel. Of these Germany has a special body to elect the federal president, but that body is composed mostly of members of parliament. And in none of these countries is the president the head of government. Here in Finland the president used to be elected by an electoral college, whose members were elected by the people and could in principle vote for whomever they wanted, but that system was abolished a few decades back. The president back then had considerable power over day-to-day politics, too.--Rallette (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind, however, that in at least some of the countries you mention the president is little more than a figurehead and doesn't have quite the power that the president of the USA does. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Adoption by persons of same sex

Someone said to me that an adoption is a process whereby a child is given the right parents.

So, in a state where persons of same sex are allowed by law to enter into a marriage (or otherwise called, for instance, civil partnership, ect):

1. Are persons of same sex who have engaged into a marriage also allowed to adopt any child? What are such states now? I am not certain if in Germany such persons are so allowed.
2. Should persons of same sex who have engaged into a marriage be also allowed to adopt any child?

182.52.98.183 (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on LGBT adoption which breaks it down by country and also by states of the US and of Australia. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

1. That depends on the location.
2. Of course they should. Any random male/female heterosexual pair of people can create a child. Why on earth should a homosexual pair be prevented from adopting and raising a child? All scientific studies on the subject indicate that children of homosexual parents fare no different--and in many axes of measurement actually fare better--than children of homosexual parents. There are untold numbers of children worldwide who are alone and need love and support and role models. Only religious fundamentalists campaign against homosexual couples being allowed to adopt these children and raise them into thoughtful human beings. I'll stop here before I start ranting. → ROUX ₪ 09:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly please don't rant, but please provde at least a few citations. If indeed "all scientific studies on the subject indicate" so, you should have no problem with that. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

From the article I linked to:

"One study has addressed the question directly, evaluating the outcomes of adoptees less than 3-years old who had been placed in one of 56 lesbian and gay households since infancy. Despite the small sample and the fact that the children have yet to become aware of their adoption status or the dynamics of gender development, the study found no significant associations between parental sexual orientation and child adjustment, making the results consistent with notions that two parents of the same gender can be capable parents and that parental sexual orientation is not related to parenting skill or child adjustment. The findings point to the positive capabilities of lesbian and gay couples as adoptive parents."

The study in question is Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families; Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter? (Rachel H. Farr, Stephen L. Forssell, Charlotte J. Patterson). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The question of whether or not they should be allowed to adopt a child should not have been asked here, because it calls for opinion; and if asked, should not have been answered. This is a reference desk, where our own personal opinions on such subjects are irrelevant. The best we can do is provide links to people whose views are published in reputable sources. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this is a fine article about the whole issue [17]. Flamarande (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The question asks whether same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt any child. As with any adoption, the couple's desire to adopt a given child needs to align with that child's needs and desires. There are certainly going to be children who do well after being adopted by a same-sex couple, better than when raised in a children's home, just as there are children who will do fine raised in single-parent households. However, some children are going to need the stability and attention of a stable couple (so a single-parent is not enough), and some are going to find life hard enough without dealing with secondhand homophobia, and some older children may be uncomfortable with a gay couple due to their upbringing before this point (so a gay couple will be unsuitable). Nobody has a right to adopt, and certainly nobody has the right to adopt any child they like. Should gay couples be able to adopt some children? As referenced above, the evidence is that this has good outcomes, and many areas allow it. Be wary, however, of making the comparison to heterosexual couples conceiving children: most jurisdictions have stricter criteria for adopting and fostering than conceiving! After all, this is a second chance for a child that is often already hurt. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Gene Wolfe short story?

It's the one where the main character is born without a head; his face is in his belly; his parents kindly make a marionette head to make up for the lack. Can anyone tell me the title, and if they can point me to the text itself, all the better. Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Indian Partnership Act

1. Whether a partner have right to file a case against another partner? 2. If yes, on which ground he can file a case against other partner? 3. In which court he should filed that case?

PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION AS PER INDIAN LAW —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashant.law (talk • contribs) 11:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)