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

April 3

Retired Air Force officers say UFOs turned off nukes

I tried to ask about this at the Science Desk[1] without much luck, but it occurred to me that I'm actually much more interested in the journalism aspects of this story. And as I've been reading more, my questions have evolved into more of a humanities bent, so I'm going to try again here.

Last September, several retired USAF officials told the National Press Club that they had witnessed nuclear ICBMs deactivating at the same time that UFOs were being reported above ground at the same facilities, and had compiled at least 120 such reports. Those officials included Bruce Fenstermacher, a former USAF nuclear missile launch officer, Charles Halt, USAF Col. Ret., a former deputy base commander, Robert Jamison, a former USAF nuclear missile targeting officer, Jerome Nelson, a former USAF nuclear missile launch officer, Robert Salas, a former USAF nuclear missile launch officer, Patrick McDonough, a former USAF nuclear missile site geodetic surveyor, and Dwynne Arneson, USAF Lt.Col., a retired communications center officer. Here is video, reports from CBS News, the Socio-Economics History Blog, a VeteransToday.com discussion site, and excerpts from one of the organizers of the National Press Club event.

My current question is very simple: Has anyone come forward to question the credibility, integrity, trustworthiness, or any other aspects of the officers who have reported these incidents? I am also interested in people's personal evaluations of these reports. 99.2.149.161 (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there are two different questions regarding 'credibility' here. Firstly there is that of the officers themselves. I've no reason to think that they would lie about events they believed had occurred, though that isn't actually evidence that such events occurred in the way they reported them. More significantly though, there is the issue of the credibility of those who gather 'evidence' regarding isolated events in order to 'prove' some wild theory regarding UFOs etc. Such persons are usually actively searching evidence for the very 'theory' they are trying to prove - and ignoring any evidence to the contrary when it suits them. They generally believe in the theory before they gather evidence - hardly an objective approach. So the answer you got from the science desk is probably appropriate regarding the 'factuality' of such phenomena. As a social phenomenon, one could look at the subject in other terms, and it would probably increase understanding to draw parallels, as others have before, with beliefs in fairies, spirits and the like - they are 'real', but as a social/psychological phenomenon rather than a material one. Probably not the answer you were looking for, but the best you are likely to get. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Another problem is with those sources. YouTube videos and blogs are not regarded as reliable sources for Wikipedia. The only one with any value is the CBS news link, and unfortunately, it's full of links to blogs too. So we are left with some statements by ex-service folks 30 years after the alleged incidents, at an event organised by a "UFO researcher". (What qualifications do you need to claim that title?) Obviously it cannot be further investigated because of both the military secrecy and time barriers. Hardly compelling evidence. It would be interesting to hear from other people who were at those bases at the time. HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's important to distinguish between evidence of a UFO and missile shutdown versus an extraterrestrial origin for the craft. For example, nuclear weapons have elaborate safeguards. Maybe other country drifted a balloon over the base with the right equipment to send a bunch of random missile codes, so the missiles locked out additional login attempts. (I have no evidence for that, but I daresay no one has evidence those craft came from another planet either) Wnt (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

As my father used to say "Any FO is U until it is I". They may have been aircraft developed in secret by another (or the same!) country. I remember seeing a UK documentary on this subject, with someone who worked for one of the UK aircraft builders claiming that they developed and tested a "flying saucer" type of aircraft, but because it caused panic when it flew over built-up areas, they didn't continue development. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That's right, Tammy. There's no need to assume extraterrestrial visitation, when a much more obvious explanation is available and is recommended by Occam's Razor: these craft are flown by Earth-dwelling non-human sentient creatures. When they say "We are not alone", they should be looking for the "others" right here in our own backyard. Literally. Maybe humans are the latecomers to planet Earth; maybe we're the real aliens here. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Help finding a source document

I'm trying to find the source document for some information on the wiki page for Cleopatra VII. Under the sub-heading, "Assassination of Pompey," there doesn't seem to be a reference number for the source document. Any help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydgarrett (talk • contribs) 02:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That section has no footnotes, so there is no direct inline citation for it. Cross checking the Pompey article, however, turns up several footnotes in the section "Civil War and assassination". Maybe you can get more information in those sources... --Jayron32 04:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as ancient sources, you can read about the death of Pompey in Appian, Civil Wars, II.83-86 ([2]) and in Plutarch, Life of Pompey 73-80 ([3]). john k (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Accessory to murder

Consider the following scenario: someone is fatally stabbed. As he is dying, he assists the person who stabbed him in escaping justice. Does that make him an accessory after the fact to his own murder? --Carnildo (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what the local authorities charge him with; if there is no formal charge no legal crime has occured. I am not aware of many modern western democracies that charge corpses with crimes, however. Furthermore, since he cannot stand trial (being dead), he cannot be convicted of the crime, so legally he didn't commit it. --Jayron32 04:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You can't charge a dead man with a crime, for various reasons. Charles Whitman, for example, probably would have bent sent to Old Sparky for his shooting rampage, but he was never tried for that crime, having been gunned down by the police. Kenneth Lay was convicted in the Enron thing, but he died before the appeal process could get going, so the conviction was vacated. The OP's scenario sounds strange, but I wouldn't rule it out in the case of the Mafia, for example. Vincent Gigante (acting on the orders of Vito Genovese) tried unsuccessfully to put a bullet through Frank Costello's head, but in Gigante's trial, Costello refused to identify Gigante, claiming he couldn't see who shot him, and Gigante was acquitted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Whitman's article has a detail new to me, which is that he apparently suffered from glioblastoma, which (per that article) apparently has a median survival time of 3 months untreated, or 1-2 years with treatment. So even in Texas, and even in 1966, I'm not sure he'd have lived long enough to be executed. --Trovatore (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That's one theory as to why he did it, i.e. that he was in some sense not responsible for his actions. We'll never know, since he was taken down. But the point is that he was never charged with anything, because he was dead. He was merely reported as the killer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I always thought that not trying dead people causes certain problems:

1) Can lead to lazy police work. That is, they can just blame an innocent dead guy for a crime and not worry about who actually committed it, since their accusation will never have to hold up in court.

2) The family of the deceased person accused of murder might like their day in court, to defend his name, but never get it.

3) Other people involved in the crime may go free. For example, if the deceased was a hit man, the person who hired him may never be determined. A trial wouldn't guarantee that they would be, but evidence needed for the jury would likely include this. StuRat (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

To point 3, not trying a hitman for a murder they performed before their death would not stop the police from the investigation and trial of the person who hired them; that person is still alive and able to stand trial for their own part in the murder for hire - solicitation and/or conspiracy to commit murder. ^Avic_ennasis @ 12:03, 2 Nisan 5771 / 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course they could, but would they bother ? It's a lot easier to just say the (dead) shooter acted alone and close the case. On the other hand, if they had to go through the process of trying the hit-man, then his motivation for the killing would certainly come up. Once it was determined that he had been paid, the public would expect an investigation into who paid him off. StuRat (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that a person charged with a crime have the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against". That's a little hard to do when you're dead. You raise some good concerns, of course. This was not an issue in the Whitman case, of course, but other situations could be less clear. However, it's important to keep in mind that the police have to judge a situation as it's happening. If a guy pulls a gun on them, or acts like he is, they have to make a quick decision on using deadly force. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, so let's make the OP's question more interesting. We all agree that a dead man cannot be charged with a crime, so the OP's question is essentially moot. Let's change the scenario, however, such that the victim is stabbed, albeit not fatally. Thus, the victim does not die and remains alive (to be charged by the police). Can he be charged with being an accessory after the fact to his own attempted murder (or assault or whatever the underlying crime is)? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC))

I think he would be more likely to be charged with "obstruction of justice". However, a good lawyer might make the case that he was not in his right mind... having just been stabbed, ya know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. But, this could be merely an "attempted" stabbing. So, maybe the criminal tried to stab the victim, but missed him altogether. As such, the victim might be left completely unharmed, physically at least. Yeah, the lawyer may make a case for psychological harm, however. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

Women have been punished by courts when they have suffered domestic abuse and later protected their abuser by refusing to testify against them in court.[4][5] However in such cases they are not charged as accessories, but more normally for contempt of court or similar offences. Some jurisdictions, e.g. California, have legislation preventing victims from being punished for refusing to testify in certain circumstances.[6][7] --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

generally speaking, if a victim refuses to file charges, the police are stuck prosecuting the perpetrator with lesser crimes; in this case, the prosecutor might be forced to file for a weapons charge or a minor assault charge (e.g. charges that can be filed by the state independently). Such crimes generally wouldn't be susceptible to accessory rulings. The only case I can imagine where this might happen is if someone goes on a killing spree, and the only survivor tries to help him escape - the state can then prosecute murder charges on the other victims and prosecute accessory charges on the victim for those. however, I have doubts that a prosecutor would do that, because of the impact on the jury: they'd be prosecuting someone who was very sympathetic (a victim who is for whatever reason showing a great deal of high-minded forgiveness), and that never bodes well. --Ludwigs2 22:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A few things. The dead can't be charged with crimes, so that's one step. Ludwigs: that's incorrect; as a practical matter the lack of a cooperating witness might derail a case, but the right to charge someone rests entirely with the state, as a general rule. Victims are not "parties" to criminal actions, unless there's some specific statute that modifies certain details. The 6th amendment point's interesting, but the Confrontation Clause has some exceptions in the case that the witness is dead, although they've been changing with Supreme Court precedent lately. There's also a doctrine in criminal law that the protected class of certain laws cannot be charged as accessories under those laws. The most famous case is the Mann Act didn't allow a woman involved in the Mann Act crime to be charged. That could possibly apply here, although it's not a subject I know much about. Shadowjams (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I wasn't talking about the lack of a cooperating witness, I was talking about the lack of a cooperating plaintiff. If someone attacks me and I refuse to press charges, I don't think the state is allowed to press charges on my behalf (nor would it be effective if they did, since it would be devastating to a case to have the supposed victim appear as a witness for the defense). --Ludwigs2 05:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Ludwigs2, you are indeed wrong. All of your assertions are incorrect (except for the parenthetical statement). In the US, the state can prosecute any crime that it wishes to prosecute, whether or not the victim agrees or cooperates. The victim is never the plaintiff in a criminal case; the state (government) is always the plaintiff. As a practical matter, however, the state may have a lousy (unwinnable) case and decide not to prosecute, if the victim is uncooperative. That decision lies with the state, not with the victim, however. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

Also, another side note. If someone attacks you (the victim), the state is not prosecuting on your behalf. They are prosecuting on behalf of society in general (i.e., all of the people in that community). That is why a criminal case is legally named, for example, "The People of the State of California versus John Q. Criminal". The victim is never the plaintiff; the plaintiff is actually "all of the people in that State" (i.e., the general community and society-at-large). Those plaintiffs (all of those people) are merely represented by the state prosecutor (district attorney), who prosecutes on their behalf. What this really means (philosophically) is that the criminal committed a crime against all of society (by breaking the laws agreed upon by that society), not just against that one specific victim. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

Not all local authorities will have the same legal definitions of: Murder 1st. 2nd. 3rd. degree, And assistance before and after, And penalties ensuing. Some leave it to the courts to decide. The intention of the actors involved will be a deciding factor. MacOfJesus (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Legal online gambling owner American Rick Salomon despite illegal in US?

Mr. Salomon is described as being an "online gambling website owner", and as far as I am aware has not been arrested etc regarding this. Yet online gambling is illegal in the US. How is this discrepancy explained? Thanks 92.15.9.102 (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe his servers are in Mexico, or Brazil, or...... HiLo48 (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm doubtful the location of the servers would matter to the US law if his customers are in the US. 92.15.9.102 (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Your doubt on the matter does not change the reality of the law: It is not illegal for U.S. citizens or residents to own online gambling businesses outside of the U.S. --Jayron32 12:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If that is true, then why is Mr Saloman in the clear while Party Gaming had to pay a big fine and close down US operations, and have not resumed it again either? See PartyGaming#U.S._legislation. I believe the principal, and probably other senior staff, was or is an American. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Can one access his gambling site from the U.S.? Bielle (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

What is illegal is operating a gambling site in the US, not a US citizen owning a gambling site. --Tango (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

How would you define "operating a gambling site in the US"? PartyGaming appears to have always been based outside the US, yet they still got into trouble. 92.29.115.116 (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There are two intertwined legal issues. One is whether the site is operated inside the US — you can't run a gambling enterprise in the US unless you are in one of a few cities (or happen to be the state). The other is that you can't run a gambling site that allows US citizens to gamble on it, even if you are located outside the US. This latter one is what PartyGaming has been complying with, and their penalty fees had to do with some agreement to avoid any future prosecution, or something like that. Frankly I don't know what site Saloman is supposed to own anymore — most of his bios on the internet say he used to own such a site, e.g. back in 2004 or so. If it was before the SAFE Port Act in 2006 then he wouldn't have come into the same kinds of problems that PartyGaming did. Otherwise he presumably didn't let people in the US gamble. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

鄧蔭南

What's the proper romanisation for the name? Neither Deng Yinnan nor Teng Yin-nan returned any results. Thanks. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The 7th result down on this Google search has 'dengyinnan' in the search result, but not on the page itself when you click on it. The page is from a server in China. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

And this confirms it. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So Deng Yin'nan seems appropriate. Thanks! Kayau Voting IS evil 14:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that you can actually take that text and mark it up like this: 鄧蔭南 and as you see, each hanzi links to its entry in Wiktionary. I wish we had better string functions enabled so we could have a simple template to mark text up this way. With WP:POPUPS enabled you should even be able to read the pronunciation without opening each page, I think. If you follow the links, they have that the Mandarin pronunciation/pinyin is dèng, yīn or yìn, nán or nā. True, that isn't entirely helpful by itself (you still need to figure out the right pronunciation for the sense in which it is used), but it does provide extra information. It looks like Wiktionary still needs t work on breaking down the pronunciations according to meaning. Wnt (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This question belongs on the Language Ref Desk. StuRat (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

AV voting - why count the 2nd. choices of the least popular candidate's votes only?

From the presentation here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12892836 it is shown that if no candidate gets over 50%, then only the voters of the least popular candidate have their second choice votes used instead. 1) Would it ever make any difference to the eventual outcome if voters for all but the most popular candidate had their second-choice votes counted all in one go? 2) Is it unfair on voters who voted neither for the most popular candidate, nor for the least popular candidate, as their second choice votes are ignored? Thanks 92.15.2.39 (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of the time, there will be two or possibly three candidates left at the end - let's just assume there are two for a second. Yes, those two could end up different because of second preference votes from eliminated parties. However, in your post, you say "all but the most popular candidate", which isn't how AV works; there are always two or more people left at the end - the others are eliminated, and cannot win (in your case, the person with the most votes wins automatically - in other words, like first past the post). If you meant "top two" then yes, that could be a plausible (if different from AV) system:

Consider candidates A, B, C, D and E who get {4,3,2,1,1} votes. In your system, both C, D and E's 2nd preferences are simultaneously counted, ergo we have their combined 4 second preferences distributed between A and B. (You haven't said what would happen to second preferences for C, D, E or another not-top-two[sic] candidate.) Under AV, E would first be eliminated; let's say to C. Then D, also to C; that leaves A B and C with {4,3,4}; in other words B would now be eliminated and C could easily win - who under your system would have been eliminated in the single round.

However, I note this example with caution because your idea of eliminating all but the top one doesn't make sense in the context of AV - the second preference only being considered after your first preference candidate has been eliminated. On your second point, the fact is AV supporters would say that all votes cast under first past the post which aren't for the eventual winner are "ignored", and thus under AV more of them are counted. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand your answer. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

To answer question 2 shortly, no it doesn't matter. If ballots were counted eliminating the last person at each round eventually you would get down to two candidates. If one of them got past 50% of the votes some of the way, there is no way that the other person could beat them. As for your first question, it would make the system nonsensical. If everyone except the leader's second preference was counted, then nobody else's first preference was counted. The idea behind the system is that in the end everyone's vote will count for either the most or second most successful candidate. So if you vote for the loser, your vote will end up being for your second preference, unless they get eliminated, in which case your third, etc. etc. While it's true they stop the counting when someone gets to 50%, that's only because it is now impossible to beat them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.192.209 (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Intially there will be one candidate who has the most 1st. choice votes (ignoring ties for the sake of arguement). If they do not have more than 50% of the votes, then wouldnt it be fairer to count the 2nd choice votes of all the voters who did not vote for the 1st choice candidate? Or wouldnt this make any difference? It just seems peculiar that on the 2nd round, its only the votes from the least popular candidate (which may be some extreme party) that are given a very big weight in deciding the fate of the most popular candidates. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict wiith 124, 92) Let's look at an actual example somewhat along the lines of what you describe: Burlington, Vermont mayoral election, 2009,[8]. Things are a bit confusing because several candidates are dropped in the first round, but this is done because it's mathematically inevitable that this will happen. If you don't agree, you can treat it as if the lowest place candidate was dropped in a second round each time, and you'll arrive at exactly the same results. Essentially, a candidate (Andy Montroll) who would have beat any of the other candidates in a head to head race (Condorcet criterion) lost. This is largely because those who voted for the second place candidate (Kurt Wright) would have preferred the third place winner (Andy Montroll) over the first place winner, Bob Kiss. This may seem a bit unfair to those who voted for Wright. In my opinion, the system still worked well, in that the person who would have won under a First-past-the-post voting system with less than 1/3 if the vote (because his opponents were split between several similar candidates: see Independence of clones criterion) lost. However, the voters disagreed, and voted to repeal IRV (AKA AV) in 2010. In favor of a Two-round system where only 40% of the vote's needed to avoid a runoff. What's really facinating is that under this system, the same candidate would have won the election! Moral: voters are stupid..

So yes, occasionally AV/IRV can be "unfair" to those who vote for a losing candidate who's not last. However, this isn't a reason to keep your silly First-Past-The-Post system (which,in some senses, is unfair to everyone who votes for a losing candidate when no majority is reached, while IRV/AV is unfair only occasionally, in very specific circumstances). If you really want to avoid these problems, demand the Schulze method, which many nerds (see Schulze_method#Use_of_the_Schulze_method) consider to be superior.

There are a lot of smart people who have though long and hard about what the advantages and disadvantages of different voting systems are. See Single-winner voting system. IRV/AV is better than Plurality voting system, including the First-Past-The-Post system used in the UK, by nearly any criterion. There are other methods that are even better than IRV according to certain criteria, but in voting theory, it's impossible to create any system that's perfect: see Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem. But just because no system's perfect doesn't mean you should stick with a system that's clearly inferior </soapbox>. Buddy431 (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is it the 2nd. choice votes from the least popular candidate rather than the 2nd choice votes from the second most popular candidate that are counted? Wouldnt that give more people an input and therefore be fairer? Why does the process go in one direction rather than the other? 92.15.2.39 (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the good information in Buddy's answer is wrapped up in some anti-FPTP bias for some reason. Anyway, OP: you can't count all the other candidate's second preferences, because that can't work. If you did that, you'd not get any narrowing of the field, except for some extra votes the leading candidate gets. We stop counting their first votes, and then add their second votes - in parallel to how AV works, where the people who voted for the lowest candidates's first votes are discarded. In fact, the sense of narrowing the field is important. Before any candidate's votes are split among the others with their second preference, they are formally eliminated - and can't win. The lowest candidate is eliminated first because they are furthest from 'winning' and so eliminating them is seen as fairer (and is undoubtedly so). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

What sort of system would you get if you just elected the candidate who had the lowest average rank on all the voters lists? That would seem to be a better way of doing it than AV, as everyone's vote would count and nobodys vote would be ignored. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It would strongly encourage tactical voting where people don't vote for what they really prefer. Suppose there are three candidates and a voter is convinced that only A and B have a real chance to win. Then suppose the voter prefers A over B, and B over C. Many voters in this situation would vote ACB, because ABC would give B a better chance to beat A. If all voters who prefer A or B places the other of them last for tactical reasons then the result could end up a surprise win for C even if a large majority of voters actually prefer both A and B over C. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If people are being dishonest about what they put down on their voting forms, then they've only got themselves to blame. If I like A but actually vote for B, then I cannot complain if B gets elected. So perhaps the system encourages honesty. It seems a better system than ignoring a large proportion of people's votes, as FPTP or AV seem to do. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the situation I described. There, somebody who likes A will of course vote A first, but if they vote B second then it risks preventing their first choice A from being elected. My last part about C winning was a more theoretical situation. I think a lot of people who honestly voted ABC would be rightfully upset if their second vote B prevented their first vote A from winning. Many of them will realize this in advance and therefore vote ACB instead. This means the system would encourage dishonesty and not honesty. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems preferable to FPTP where you never even vote for your preferred candidate if you think they are unpopular. I would hope in the scenario you have outlined that at least you get your second choice. Which system gives the least proportion of disgruntled voters? I imagine it is impossible to have no disgruntled voters, unless someone gets 100% of the vore. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the OP would seem to allow not expressing additional preferences, thereby making it a "bullet vote"; this isn't all preferable. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Never said that. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I was merely going off "Then simply ignore the vote boxes that the voter has not filled in.", which does seem to suggest I can just have my first preference and no other preferences. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I misread your comment. But even under AV you don't have to fill in all the boxes on your voting form, if you want you could just fill in one box. I don't see that its any problem. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The other problem with that system is that every voter has to express a complete set of preferences. In real life, there might be one or tow they like the look of, one or two they don't, but lots of people (for example independents) they can't rank. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Then simply ignore the vote boxes that the voter has not filled in. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That could cause big problems in some circumstances. Suppose there is a very obscure candidate that has a tiny number of strong supporters. Those supporters will rank this candidate highest, while almost everyone else doesn't know anything about the candidate, so doesn't bother ranking them. This candidate has a good chance of winning on the basis of a tiny level of support. 130.88.134.221 (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, so treat only partly filled in voting forms as spoiled votes if you want. 92.24.184.244 (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what method 92.15 is talking about, but it sounds like he's advocating some sort of Borda count. The Borda count is not an inherently bad way of voting, and it is used used politically in a few places. As PrimeHunter mentions, the Borda method strongly encourages tactical voting, to a greater extent than IRV or even plurality voting. Borda count is, in some senses, more likely to lead to a candidate who, overall, everyone is generally OK with, rather than a candidate who the majority like, but a large minority dislike, as can occur in IRV. That's still better then FPTP, where you can elect a candidate who only a minority like, and a moderate majority dislike. Borda count also encourages parties with similar ideologies to field as many candidates as possible, as this makes it much more likely that one of them will win. This problem is largely absent in IRV/AV, and the opposite problem occurs in FPTP (where candidates with similar ideologies hurt each other). Buddy431 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"Borda count is, in some senses, more likely to lead to a candidate who, overall, everyone is generally OK with" - great, that's what we want! 92.15.2.39 (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason the Borda Count is not used is because of what I call the Bozo the Clown problem. Let's say you have four candidates: A, B, C and Bozo the Clown. No one votes Bozo with their first preference. But the A voters hate B and C so much that they vote Bozo with their second preference. Same with the B and C voters. So when everyone's second preference is counted, Bozo wins! In instant-runoff voting, Bozo is eliminated first, so he can't win. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You could I expect think up such circumstances under any voting scheme. In FPTP - everyone hates A,B,C, so they all vote for Bozo - Bozo wins! In the example Mwalcoff gives, I cannot see what's wrong with Bozo winning if people vote for him. He was the second preference of most people, preferred to ABC, so there's nothing wrong with him winning. I think this is a straw-man argument. 92.24.184.244 (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

So is there any consensus on the best voting system to use? And I'm curious, is it possible to say which voting scheme works best with similar artificial intelligence decision-making systems? 92.15.2.39 (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No, because there are differing aims of the system. We don't know which result is the right one. For example, Buddy mentions a case where the result changed - the system he praises for not electing someone on a third of the vote is the same one I'd criticise for not electing someone with a third of the vote. You suggest that tactical voting is a personal issue, but this isn't the case. The problem with tactical voting is that often, a candidate who no-one wanted gets in, and chances are they don't want them is related to how good a job they'd do - for example fringe candidates. That's going to affect everyone, not just those making the tactical vote. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly: no voting system is perfect. And that's not just an empirical observation, but a mathematical fact: Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem (edit: and Arrow's impossibility theorem). And yet, I will reiterate that a voting system that has gained wide support among smart people is the Schulze method. It is complicated and hard to understand, which makes it undesirable to many voting populations. It would probably never be used by choice by the masses. However, mathematically, it is a very good voting system, precluding many of the problems that can occur with Plurality (FPTP), IRV, and Borda methods. People who tend to have strong mathematical and computer skills (and who actually think about such things) tend prefer it. It's what we use at the Wikimedia Foundation [9]. It's what Debian Project uses [10]. It still has some susceptibility to tactical voting, but not as much (and not as obviously) as other methods, especially FPTP and Borda count. Obviously, I'm biased, in that I think smart, tech savvy people are better able to judge the merits of different voting systems than the general population. Buddy431 (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Borda system is used by a lot of universities according to its article, so its what the intelligent prefer. I've begun to think that the AV system is undesirable, because it puts your votes through a sort of arbitrary spagethi machine. The Borda system seems preferable to AV. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Borda system works well when people vote in good faith, truly ranking candidates in their order of preference. It works well for things where there are many good, truly differentiated candidates, and only one can win, as in sports trophies (i.e. Heisman Trophy [11]) and Eurovision Song Contest. Notice that in many of these examples, the votes are publicly known, which can discourage things like burying second choice candidates under obviously weaker rivals. It works less well when there are many voters with secret ballots (who are less likely to vote their genuine choices), or when it is easy for very similar candidates to enter the race to skew the results (Strategic nomination). In my opinion, there are good reasons why it is used frequently for sports trophies, but infrequently in politics. Buddy431 (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Protecting people from themselves who are being deliberately dishonest is very low on my list of priorities. And I can't think that having more than one candidate with similar views is such a bad thing: you might prefer Tory A to Tory B. It may even be preferable. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is, you're rewarding dishonest behavior. It's in people's own best interest to vote contrary to what they truly believe. Most voting systems do this to some extent (quite a bit in FPTP, less in IRV or a Two-round system), but Borda really is the worse in this respect.

In any case having multiple candidates with similar views makes it more likely that one of those candidates will win. Suppose there are 4 candidates: Tory A, Tory B, Tory C, and Labour A. Furthur suppose that a small majority (maybe 55%) will vote vote Labour, while the remainder (45%) vote Tory. In a FPTP system, IRV system, Two-round system, or Schulze method system, candidate Labour A will win, and I think pretty much everyone will agree that that's the best winner in this situation (it's not like the Vermont case where multiple people could be considered the "correct" winner). However, in a Borda system, it's likely that one of the Torries will win. All of the conservative voters will vote for the three Tory candidates for their first three choices, and Labour A will be their last choice. The labour voters will all vote for Labour A as their first choice, but will still be forced to rank the Torries 2,3, and 4. So Each of the Tory candidates will receive a lot of points from the conservative voters, while the Labour candidate will receive a lot of points from the labour voters. However, the Tory candidates will also receive a lot of points from Labour voters (they are, after all, second choice), while the Labour candidate will receive very few points from the conservative voters. Depending on the point system, and the exact breakdown of votes, it's very likely that one of the Tory candidates will win, even though over half the electorate would have preferred the Labour candidate. That's not very fair, is it? Buddy431 (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Just have a rule: one party, one candidate. Problem solved. 92.29.115.116 (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That could be easily circumvented by forming a new party, with identical policies to the existing one you favour. Even if you found a way of prohibiting that, parties are not equally spaced along the political spectrum - for example, think of the many very similar socialist parties, which would all be artificially boosted under this method. Warofdreams talk 12:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That may be no worse than the current situation in FPTP - where similar candidates split the vote and some less-prefered candidate wins. 92.15.8.14 (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Under FPTP standing multiple candidates makes you less likely to win - opportunities to game the system aren't great (threatening to split the vote can sometimes work). Under this system, standing multiple candidates makes you more likely to win - everyone would be gaming the system. That sounds worse, to me. Warofdreams talk 10:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, at least, its unlikely that one political party would encourage or like another rival political party even if they had identical poicies. Provided you had a "one party, one candidate" rule, it should be OK. If party A has lost to party B with identical policies, then from party A's point of view, they have still lost. 92.24.184.41 (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

A side comment about multiple-office elections and STV

While this is probably very tangential to the AV/IRV problems in a single-office election, it might just be worth pointing out (or recalling) that in a multiple-office election conducted under systems like the Single Transferable Vote (for example, the recent Irish general election where each single constituency returned four or five members of the Dáil Eireann; see http://www.rte.ie/news/election2011/prstvlogic.html), lesser preferences on winning candidates' ballots can be counted once those winning candidates have reached the qualifying minimum "quota" for election. (Some methods of counting look only at the ballots above that quota; the fairest systems look at the lesser preferences on all the ballots and distribute a proportionate "excess" fraction to each remaining candidate; others look only at a proportionate random selection of all ballots cast for a winning candidate.) In general, so long as there are still these "excess" second preferences to be distributed, none of the remaining candidates is eliminated. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square vs. Libya

When the Chinese government slaughtered protesters in Tiananmen Square, the protests died out. When Gaddafi tried the same thing in Libya, why did the protests expand instead? --70.244.234.128 (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

We can only guess, but mine would be that, for a start, where Libya was concerned, there were a number of population centres simultaneously involved in the protests, and not just one square in the middle of a city, surrounded by troops, as was the case in Tiananmen. To be sure, protests were going on in other parts of China at the time of Tiananmen, but they were nowhere near as big as the one in Tiananmen, which is why it got practically all of the coverage. Another reason would be that, people had been mentioning a possible repeat of Tiananmen during the protests in Egypt only weeks before (though thankfully it never happened), and I would guess that people in Libya were prepared for it - unlike the unfortunate protesters in Tiananmen. Beyond my guessing here, I can only speculate. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

In Libya the rebels had access to both weapons and military support from other nations. None of these were available in China. StuRat (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A far greater section of the Libyan elite has defected to the opposition than what happened in China in 1989. The Libyan rebels include former military officers and cabinet ministers and had such overwhelming support in many cities that they quickly gained control over the eastern half of the country. The Tienanmen protesters were largely students and other hoi polloi concentrated in the middle of the capital. Yes, there were 100,000 protesters -- out of a population of 1 billion. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

KägeTorä, virtually every major city in China had extensive protests in the late Spring of 1989, and in some of the inland provincial capitals, hundreds of people were killed in the crack-down. It wasn't a one-city affair. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of that, DOR, which is why I said protests were going on in other parts of China at the time of Tiananmen, but they were nowhere near as big as the one in Tiananmen, which is why it got practically all of the coverage above. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Authorities in other cities also had the sense to try to diffuse the situation peacefully rather than calling in the field army. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Home CCTV

As I've had various things stolen from my front garden recently, I'm considering installing some kind of time-lapse camera overlooking it. This would as a side effect photograph anyone passing on the pavement at the time the photos were taken.

Where can I find out about what rules etc that I need to abide by in these circumstances, such as a "You're on CCTV" notice? Thanks 92.15.2.39 (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what country (or U.S. state) you're located in? -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to add that I am in the UK. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that any supplier of CCTVs in the UK would know what you'd need to do. I'll look around here and on the web for relevant laws for you, but in the meantime I would suggest asking your supplier.--KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how reliable this source is, but this came from googling 'UK CCTV law home' (which, incedentally, tried to autofill to 'UK CCTV law workplace', so you might want to check that out too). Other links from my search are Home CCTV Law and a government one. If you need more than internet links, then I would suggest contacting your local council, as they are bound to know. Best of luck! --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. One of the links says I can use up to three cameras and I don't even need to put up a sign or do anything else. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If those items are stolen at night, a motion detector that turns a light on might be more effective at preventing theft. Of course, if your goal is to catch the thieves, then a camera is needed, although you may not recognize them in the video. StuRat (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm already dazzled by the bright street lighting all night, so more isnt needed thanks. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

is there such a thing as

caring so much for a person that you kill yourself to protect that person from yourself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.219.105 (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. If you would like a broad example, you can read about the samurai in Japan, who were usually more than willing to die for their masters. In an individual case, Masuda Sayo's brother committed suicide so Sayo wouldn't have to prostitute herself to pay for his TB treatment (it's obscure, I know, but I'm planning on taking a crack at our article on Autobiography of a Geisha). There are many examples throughout history. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Some original research from my own experience - many years ago I had a friend that committed suicide. He had a mental illness; their were voices in his head telling him to hurt his mother, and it got to the point that he felt the need to take his own life to protect her from himself. ^Avic_ennasis @ 12:22, 2 Nisan 5771 / 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"Recently surfaced manuscripts" of Ramon Llull

How did could documents from around 1300 only become known in the last few years? Where had they been for the last seven hundred years? The article does not seem to say. Thanks 92.15.2.39 (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about Llull specifically (or how "recent" this discovery was), but it's not uncommon to find new manuscripts. Sometimes they aren't labelled and are bound with unrelated texts. Sometimes they're in a national library collection but have been mislabelled or lost in the archives. Sometimes they've made their way into a private library and the owner doesn't realize what's there. In this case, the manuscripts were presumably known in the Middle Ages, and were lost later; maybe they weren't very interesting to later medieval or Renaissance people (and therefore were not copied by hand), or early printers (election theory?! That's boring), or maybe they were misplaced during a revolution or war. I'm just randomly speculating, but it's not unusual. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Dead Sea Scrolls had lain untouched for almost 2,000 years before being discovered. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 8's reference "LLULL'S WRITINGS ON ELECTORAL SYSTEMS", which describes the "discovery," is hard to read for a non-specialist. It seems to indicate that already-known works (tucked away in catalogued archives but otherwise ignored) had not been correctly identified as the 3 missing works in Lully's earliest bibliographies, either because they had different titles or maybe no titles. In other words, no one paid attention to the 3 works because they didn't know that those were THE 3 works, as opposed to just unrelated or unidentified documents. The 2001 "discovery" by the authors of the paper in fn 8 was the identification of the 3 works as BEING the previously "missing" wokrs, hiding in plain sight. If someone else has a better interpretation of this hard-to-understand source, please correct me.63.17.78.6 (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that. I can try to explain it more clearly then: essentially, we know what Llull wrote because he himself made a list, which included his works on election theory. That list was known in the Renaissance and was included in bibliographies of Llull's works, but some of the works on election theory were lost afterwards. One of them was always well-known, the one at the end of Llull's novel Blanquerna. The article mentions one manuscript of the novel in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich, which is an important national library. The manuscripts in there are usually well-known, and in this case there are lots of other manuscripts of the novel anyway, so that one part of it, which takes up only one folio at the end of the book, must have always (or usually) been copied with the rest of the novel.

The second work they mention is De arte eleccionis, which is also very small, only one folio, at the end of a manuscript of Llull's works, copied by Nicholas Cusanus in 1428. It was copied from a manuscript which he found in Paris, which itself was written by Llull in 1299. This is one of the ways texts were spread in the Middle Ages - someone went to a library, copied the whole thing by hand, and brought his copy back home. At some point, the manuscripts in Paris were lost, or moved out of Paris, or destroyed somehow (the archive caught fire, perhaps; or just imagine all the violence that has occurred in Paris since the fifteenth century, and you can see there would have been numerous occasions for a library to be destroyed). So, Cusanus' copy is the only one left, but that's located in the Cusanusstift in Bernkastel-Kues, which is (I guess) a monastery library, not as easily accessed as a national library, and probably not arranged and archived systematically. So it took until 1937 for Martin Honecker to discover it.

The third one is Arte electionis personarum, which like the others is only one folio in a larger manuscript of some of Llull's other works. It has no separate chapter heading, so it's hard to tell that it's supposed to be a separate work, and it's also hastily and messily copied, as if the copyist was taking notes for personal use, not making a proper copy. The copyist was apparently Pier Leoni, the physician of Lorenzo de Medici, which likely means that he had a copy of the manuscript in Florence. I don't know what happened to the original manuscript, but the copy by Leoni ended up in the Vatican Library, which is like a national library...I've never been there myself but apparently it is enormous, idiosyncratically archived, and difficult to use in general, and there is a lot of stuff in it that just isn't archived properly at all yet. So it's not surprising that something could get lost in there. It was rediscovered (somehow!) by Llorenç Perez Martinez in 1959.

But even after that, some people knew of Perez Martinez's discovery, and not of Honecker's, and vice versa. The modern editors of Raimundi Lulli Opera, otherwise an authoritative edition of Llull's works, knew about Honecker but not Perez Martinez.

I hope that makes sense. Incidentally you can see photographs of the manuscripts, and transcriptions and translations, at The Augsburg Web Edition of Llull's Electoral Writings. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You would think that everything in the various Vatican libraries would be properly catalogued by now. Its tantalising to think that there may be other lost classical works waiting to be discovered, there or in other places. 92.29.115.116 (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe somebody who understands Adam's answer can edit this in the Llull article: Subsection: "Mathematics, statistics, and classification"

"With the 2001 discovery of his lost manuscripts Ars notandi, Ars eleccionis, and Alia ars eleccionis, ..." It appears to be inaccurate ("2001 discovery"?). 63.17.91.115 (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln, Civil War and Slavery

So, the Southern states chose to secede, because they were afraid Lincoln would abolish slavery, or so most people would say. (First question, is this accurate?) My main question is: if Lincoln were to decide to do so on the day of his inauguration (he wouldn't have tried, I assume, but let's suppose), and the Southern states tried to block him through purely legal means, could he have succeeded? Specifically, did he have the votes in both houses? If he did, could he have passed some law abolishing slavery that would be valid under the Constitution? I assume he couldn't have possibly got a constitutional amendment with Southern states opposed. And more broadly, why did the leaders of Southern states not try to oppose him legally first? --99.113.32.198 (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Without the War, Lincoln could not have abolished slavery by proclamation... What allowed him to issue the Emancipation Proclamation was the fact that the southern states were in open rebellion, and were technically under Marshal Law (and as Commander in Chief, Lincoln defined that law). And lets not forget that the EP only applied to rebel states ... it did not free the slaves in Maryland and the other slave States that stayed with the Union. Even then, A lot of people thought he was over stepping his authority in issuing it.

But to examine your hypothetical where there is no war... The Republicans did have a small majority in the House of Representatives, so I suppose it would be conceivable that a bill to abolish slavery might have been proposed and passed in the House. However, it definitely would not have passed in the Senate (where pro-slavery Democrats held the majority) and so would not have become Law. It never would have reached Lincoln's desk for his signature as President. The debate would have been heated, and would have affected subsequent elections... but probably with no real change... Abolition minded Republicans might have continued to gain seats in the House as the Northern States grew in population... but the balance in the Senate would probably not have changed much. As long as the Southern Senators could block any abolition bill, the situation would not have changed. Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought too. So wouldn't the Southern leaders see this too? --99.113.32.198 (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The South definitely seceded primarily because they were afraid Lincoln would abolish slavery, yes. The wrapped it up in the veneer of "state's rights" and all that, but slavery was the major issue they were worried about, and they were pretty clear about that at the time. In retrospect many have chosen to under-emphasize that aspect of things, but if you read their own reasons for secession, they were abundantly clear about slavery.

Interestingly, legal means were pursued by many — and probably would have succeeded if the South had not seceded. See, e.g., the Corwin Amendment. It is unclear to me exactly why they abandoned this route so early (as you point out, there is really a very slim chance that an anti-slavery amendment would have been able to get 2/3rds majority). Two obvious possibilities: 1. they were worried that if they waited too long, they'd lose some sort of military advantage (better to do it before Lincoln could start his presidency), 2. Those who were organizing the secession were too hot-headed to wait and compromise and bargain. But I don't know of either of those are really defensible theses. I do think we have adequate evidence from modern times that once people get crazy political ideas in their heads regarding how "evil" a given President might be, they are willing to run with them, no matter what the facts may indicates, and even if ultimately to their own disadvantage. But this is just an observation. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very helpful. I'd like to point out that in addition to 2/3 requirement for the amendment, there's also 3/4 of states' legislatures requirement, which would simply make it completely impossible, short of creating a bunch of small states for the purpose:) --99.113.32.198 (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

98 -- Under the U.S. constitution as it existed at the time, the executive and legislative branches of the federal government simply did not have the power to intervene inside the states to overturn state laws on most subjects (including slavery), while the U.S., Supreme court was solidly under Southern pro-slavery control in 1861, so that it's really nonsense to say that Lincoln was about to imminently abolish slavery. Lincoln was very well aware of this, and stated it numerous times before his election (including in the Cooper Union speech). In fact, the Republican Party priorities were to eliminate forms of Federal government support for slavery that were not mandated by the Constitution, to closely examine the cases of Federal government support for slavery that were in fact mandated by the Constitution (i.e. requirements for return for fugitive slaves), and above all, to immediately and urgently block and prevent any further expansion of slavery into the federally-governed teritories. AnonMoos (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So, it sounds to me like the Southerners were afraid of becoming some sort of second-class citizens in the North-Republican-dominated US society and that's why they wanted to secede and build their own. What an irony:). --216.239.45.4 (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

One thing to remember at this point was that most of the U.S. territory at this point was still unorganized as states; indeed the big thing that prevented new states from being formed was slavery. For over 50 years, a careful balance was struck (unofficially) that new states only be admitted as slave/free pairs, to prevent one side or the other from gaining enough of a majority to change the status quo. See Missouri Compromise and Compromise of 1850. There was a very real fear that Lincoln and the Republicans could have worked to simply create a bunch of new "free" states and overwhelm the slave state/free state balance and impliment their policies that way. Some 80 years later, a similar threat by FDR to pack the courts with Democrats (see Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937) was used to force through the New Deal. Back to 1860, rather than ascede to this threat, the south simply seceded. --Jayron32 21:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Jayron32 -- The strict parity of admitting one slave state for every free state had already broken down a number of years before the start of the Civil War (as John Calhoun had already clearly foreseen in the early 1840s would happen). However, the attempt from about 1854-1858 to make Kansas be a slave state was perceived by many southerners as an attempt to redress this lost balance. Unfortunately, those attempting to make Kansas become a slave state had to employ a number of dubious political manipulations and outright sleazy and underhanded methods to further their goal -- from the Kansas-Nebraska Act, by which the South obtained the repeal of the Missouri Compromise 36°30′ line while the North got absolutely nothing whatever in return, to many cases of voter fraud and intimidation by violence in Bleeding Kansas, the Lecompton Constitution fiasco, etc. etc. -- which very strongly alienated moderate Northern opinion, and directly led to the rise of the Republican Party as the first major anti-slavery party. So the strategy of trying to restore a parity of slave states at all costs without paying any attention to the political consequences really turned out to be greatly counterproductive... AnonMoos (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. The slavery issue was the elephant in the room during the first 75 years of the nation's existance, it influenced nearly every single political issue on a national level in a huge way. The very existance of any legalized slavery made the Civil War inevitable, despite all of the wrangling by the south to maintain slavery and by the north to avoid addressing the issue directly and avoid open revolt. Both sides ultimately failed in reaching a political end to slavery, which is why there was a military one. --Jayron32 02:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the South viewed their choices as this:

A) Stick with the Union, and slowly lose influence as the population of the North continued to outstrip theirs, and new free states formed, as (perhaps over a generation or two) slavery would become more and more restricted, and eventually outlawed. At this point the North's further advantages in population and industrial capacity would make the South powerless to act.

B) Secede immediately, in which case they felt they had some chance of either avoiding a war or fighting the North to a draw, and thus establishing an independent nation where slavery could be preserved forever.

Now, that last goal, of maintaining slavery forever, seems absurd to me, as they would have become more and more isolated internationally as long as they maintained that practice, but they seemed to have thought it was still possible. StuRat (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A lot of bad decisions seem like "a good idea at the time". Even at that, there was a degree of steamrolling and reluctance in the secession. The border states refused to align with the Confederacy. Western Virginia split off to become a new state. North Carolina's secession vote was a rejection, until they found themselves surrounded by Confederate states, and then they reluctantly re-voted to join the Confederacy. The South had the will and the leadership to win the early battles, but the North had the resources, and once they got some generals that were up to the task, and as long as they stuck with it, they would prevail. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't have any immediate practical effect in terms of slavery, but it was a brilliant political stroke, in that it took away any chance that England would come to the aid of the South, and guaranteed that the South would be treated like a "conquered nation" once the North's resources inevitably overwhelmed the South. The Confederacy was indeed a "lost cause", and the Proclamation was one of the nails in its coffin. The ultimate irony is that the decision to secede hastened the arrival of all the issues in your point (A), and it also helped accelerate the power and strength of the Union toward what it would become in the 20th century. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

StuRat -- A lot of Northerners interpreted the basic Southern position as being a classic case of "Rule or Ruin". From 1852-1861, southerners or those friendly to southern positions dominated the executive branch through extremely pro-Southern presidents, dominated the U.S. Supreme Court, and dominated the Senate, for a clear stranglehold on 2½ of the 3 branches of government (the remaining ½, the House, went back and forth after the political turmoil stirred up by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, see above). There was no clear and present immediate danger to the existence of slavery inside the slave states after the election of Lincoln to the presidency -- however, what would have greatly changed in 1861 would have been that the Southerners would have had to get used to the fact that they had lost their previous domination over U.S. politics as a whole. (Of course, some would say that the Southerners had wantonly thrown away their domination by engineering the Douglas-Breckinridge split within the Democratic party in 1860, which paved the way for Lincoln to win the election). A common Northern perspective was that Southerners decided what they could not dominate, they would petulantly attempt to destroy ("rule or ruin")... AnonMoos (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln did win without a single electoral vote from a slave state didn't he? Googlemeister (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That's correct. See United States presidential election, 1860. The South had a couple of their puppets in the White House during the 1850s, and once Lincoln was elected, the South knew the game was up. (As noted by others earlier in this discussion.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

amount of grain used to produce a kilo of beef and economics

Hi, you always hear that it takes about 16 kilos of grain to produce a kilo of beef, which we normally think of as a science question, but isn't it rather an economics one? The (average) cost of a kilo of beef doesn't look to me (when I visit the supermarket) too much like 16 times the cost of a kilo of flour, so if it were taking 16 kilos of grain for each of those kilos of beef, surely the farmers would do better to sell the grain as flour. I know there's more to it than that, because the real determinant for the farmer is the market cost of the thing he sells to another firm, minus the production cost, with something more factored in for the delay in growing a cow (if it's not baby beef, at least). Still, these things look simple enough, and I would think that the trouble of growing grain, then feeding it unprocessed to cows, then looking after the cows must be greater (hence more expensive) than just growing grain and milling it into flour. Hence surely the hidden factors would be on the "pro-flour" side of the balance sheet, one would think. What of this argument? What is the difference in profitability for a kilo of flour and a kilo of beef, and does this translate correctly into the cost to the consumer, or is there some form of inefficiency clouding the market in some countries? I'm in Australia, but interested in what happens elsewhere, also. Many thanks, It's been emotional (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the farmer isn't paying for a kilo of flour retail, he's purchasing unprocessed grain. Part of the cost of the flour is the cost of milling it, packaging it, shipping it to the store, advertising it, lighting and heating the supermarket, paying for the checkout clerks, etc. There's also the issue of bulk discounts; the farmer isn't buying 1-5 kilos at a time, but more on the order of tonnes. The per-kilo price of several tonnes of grain at a feed mill will be less than the per-kilo price of flour purchased retail. By the way, the same can be said about the kilo of beef, too. The price the farmer will get for his cattle will be less per-kilo than you'd pay the store, due to butchering, packing, shipping, etc. costs. The fact that a kilo of flour and a kilo of beef are close to the same price retail is probably more an indication that the packing, shipping, etc. costs are similar. -- 174.21.244.142 (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with most of the above, where I am, beef mince is of the order of pounds per kilo; flour somewhere in the tens of pence range, perhaps ten times less per kilo. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

And that argument against meat tends to be rather one-sided. That is, IF you were to feed cattle all on grain suitable for people, that argument might apply. However, cattle can eat things which people can't eat, like grasses, and most cattle have these as at least part of their diet. Now, you might think that (human edible) grains could just be grown everywhere grass is, but it can't, at least not at the same price. Cattle might also be wiling to eat grain crawling with bugs, which would disgust people. Also, some animals, such as sheep, can get at grass and grains in areas that would be impractical to harvest, such as hilly areas and those with mixed and/or sparse vegetation. So, all this makes meat not quite as expensive in environmental or economic terms. Also, those comparisons tend to say that we could get our calories cheaper from the grains directly than via beef, but if you look at getting protein that way, beef's a better bargain, since beef has maybe 10 times as much protein by weight. StuRat (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

...because 10 is greater than 16? ;-) Seriously, I'm a meat-eater as they come. But from an economic and ecologic perspective, going (more) vegetarian makes a lot of sense. Most people in the first world do not suffer protein deficiency (indeed, most suffer no deficiency in any kind of food, but rather the opposite). It is true that there are marginal environments in which animals can extract useful calories from primary production, but these are fairly rare. Most of the meat we (as a society) eat comes from more or less factory-raised animals fed with high-energy fodder that does crowd out potential human food production. If we ate half the meat at twice the price, that would be an overal improvement to economy, ecology, and health. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Where I live, cattle don't eat grain. They graze land, most of which couldn't be used to grow anything edible by humans on any commercial scale. Even more so for sheep and goats "The kilo of grain versus kilo of beef" argument is a strawman. Gwinva (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

See my preceding comment. The situation exists, but is rare for meat consumed in the first world. The argument is completely valid, although, as always, the real world us more messy than a laboratory. I'd be interested to know where your experience is coming from, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Open range cattle are not rare in the US West, and much of that land would require very major irrigation etc. to make usable for crops.

(Also, it does not seem entirely obvious that changing our agricultural practices in the First World, even to a much more efficient model, would actually help world hunger; much more food is produced globally than is needed to feed the total global population. The areas with really severe hunger are largely the ones cut off from being able to get food from elsewhere -- because of war-caused disruptions or extreme poverty or etc. So it isn't wholly clear that making more food in the US (or Europe, or wherever) would result in getting more food to sub-Saharan Africa (or wherever) -- though one could argue that a greatly lowered cost of food might well help. (The war-torn regions, which seem to be a large proportion of the really bad cases, would probably still remain unable to get the food...)

As for the ecological argument... that's probably even trickier, and may be simply a matter of weighing different goods and harms against one another. Open range cattle, and other models that allow real grazing [as opposed to feedlot/mostly grain-fed models] is probably closer to the natural environment of the central and western US than normal farms -- these were grazed lands, often by bison. Of course, cattle tend to overgraze, but even a severely overgrazed grassland is probably more like the original than a pesticide- and fertilizer-drenched corn monoculture. OTOH cows produce methane, which is a greenhouse gas... and there are a billion other factors... Vultur (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of this open range cattle will be move to a feedlot for "finishing" before being marketed. That's where the high-energy food is fed to them. I don't know how big the market for purely grass-fed beef is, but it's fairly hard to find in supermarkets where I have lived, and typically has a big price premium.

Yes, the ecological situation is complex (and made more complex because we have basically no "natural" land anyways - the great plains probably were partly shaped by managed burning since 10000 BCE or so). But that does not change the fact that intensive corn production (needed to feed cattle in feedlots) and deforestation to create pasture land have massive negative impacts. If we restrict our beef diet to just pastured cattle on existing pasture (something the market will not bear, of course), your argument would apply. As always, there is no easy solution to real-world problems, but we should at least stop subsidising over-production in ecologically harmful modes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe Gwinva lives in NZ Nil Einne (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The same conditions apply in parts of the north-west of England where grain will not ripen for human consumption, but where the land is well-suited to meat production. Dbfirs 08:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

According to today's commodity prices, corn is 7.36/bu ($0.131 a lb) vs feeder cattle at $1.419 a lb. That is a ratio of 1 to 10.8, not 1 to 16. Googlemeister (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Now you get to the fun part. For the cattle, what's the weight being quoted? If it's feeder cattle, it's probably the live weight, as opposed to the hanging weight (deskinned/degutted) or even total butchered weight. The 16-to-1 ratio was probably calculated based on the butchered-in-supermarket weight (because that's where it's most relevant, also where you'd get the most shocking ratio). If a live cow is 50% salable (finished) meat, the grain ratio for the live weight is then only 8-to-1. Also, the feeder cattle price is for the cattle prior to the feedlot, where they are typically fed more grain. A farmer selling feeder cattle hasn't put in 16 lb or even 8 lb of grain for every pound of cattle - and that's even assuming they've only been fed grain, as opposed to the most likely case where they've been grazed instead. As is typical with any statistic provided by someone pushing an agenda, the 16-to-1 figure represents the extreme. -- 174.21.244.142 (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And where would Organic farming be without all that animal muck? Alansplodge (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Marge Simpson: "Homer, we need more manure for the crops."

Homer Simpson: "Geez, I'm only one man !" StuRat (talk) 07:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If you pick up last week's issue of The economist food economics and the global food supply get 8 pages of coverage and the comparisons between meat and plant-based foods features prominently.124.171.192.209 (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks folks, that's fantastic, especially the last point. I will be sure to check that out. Great magazine from everything I've come across. It's been emotional (talk) 08:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Who were the boy's in the car with Sharon Carr when she murdered Kaite Rackliff?

Hi

Having read many articals on Sharon Carr and the murder of Katie Rackliff (Camberley, Surrey, UK) I am curious to find out if the 2 boys that were in the car with Sharon were ever found, or convicted, if so why have they not been demonised like Sharon.

In an artical by the Independant it say's

'Detectives seized Carr's writings and drawings, and questioned her for 27 hours. She gave three different accounts of how Katie had been killed, but in all of them the central theme was she had repeatedly stabbed her.

In two of the versions, Carr said she was with two boys in a car at the time of the attack, and they had engaged in sexual activity with Katie before dumping the body. She named the two boys. Police interviewed them but they provided alibis for each other, and were eliminated from the inquiry. However, the prosecution could not satisfactorily explain how Katie, who weighed 8st 8lbs, was dragged across a pavement and around a corner by a 12-year-old girl.' (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/i-was-born-to-be-a-killer-every-night-i-see-the-devil-in-my-dreams-1275032.html)

How can the boy's she mentioned be let go after giving EACH OTHER alibis??? - surely this way any 2 people who decide to commit murder could give each other alibis and get off - can you please explain this as a point of law - or is the Independant incorrect? Thank you.

Jojojojo2828 (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

They could give each other alibis, but as with any defence the alibis need not be believed by the Police or accepted by a jury. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

From reading the article, it seems that the only reason to suspect the involvement of the boys was Carr's statements - and these weren't consistent. Even without alibis, any charges against them would have been based on dubious evidence. On that basis, the only person who could be charged was the one person who was involved according to verifiable (if circumstantial) evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So how did Carr drag Katie accross the pavent and round the corner???Jojojojo2828 (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Program applications

Hi. I'm a 12th grade student and in my final summer before college I have some summer programs that I'm interested in, for which I will no longer qualify after beginning college. (and which I finally have time for now that I don't have any more summer homework or "Extended Essays" or service hours to log) I will be taking various courses whose subjects I love but which do not figure into my career path. A lot of them require application fees or deposits, up to 300$, which is quite a lot. Will they just throw away my application without reading it if I don't pay the fee when submitting it, or will they read it then if I am accepted they'll send me a note saying I need to pay the fee before I can attend (that I can do). Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It is more likely that they would return your application unprocessed, saying that it should be re-submitted along with the fee stipulated. The delay this would introduce could mean that a deadline would pass or that all the available course places would have been filled by the time of your resubmission. If you are sure of having the necessary money by the time(s) of commencement, perhaps you could arrange a loan from a relative, friend, or some local businessperson with reason to trust you. There might possibly be some academic trust fund or bursary local to you (wherever you are) or at the institutions concerned (whatever they are) that would help out with cases such as yours, but without knowing those details no-one answering here is likely to be able to advise you further. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.248 (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A $300 application fee sounds like a scam to me. It can't possibly take that much to hire people to read your application, so they must be making money off it. Stay away. StuRat (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the above scam assessment. Admission deposit (usually non-refundable) will be deducted from your total tuition; it's not an additional charge (one example). @OP: Different college has different payment policy, your best course of action would be to call the college (admission office/register) and ask. Royor (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify: A $300 deposit, once you've been accepted, is reasonable. A $300 application fee is a scam. StuRat (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a big difference between an application fee and an admission deposit. The former are usually low (though still irritating, in my opinion). The latter can be quite high — they are basically just recoverable, non-refundable fees for anyone who has actually enrolled. (If you transfer or drop out, you don't have to pay the rest of your tuition, obviously, but the university keeps the deposit.) --Mr.98 (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you get the deposit back if they don't accept your application? I've never head of such things in the UK. Some places charge application fees (of £10, say), but that's it. --Tango (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Our questioner doesn't specify what country s/he is in, and "300$" is not a common way of expressing the sum of three hundred US dollars — perhaps the questioner is in another country, one that uses the "$" to refer to a weaker currency. Don't know about any current currencies, but I know that Portugal used to use the $ (to express 300 escudos and 33 centavos or centimos or whatever made up an escudo, you'd write "300$33"); is this character still in use in a former Portuguese colony? Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP looks up to the US and the OP appears to live in the US although may not be a citizen [12] [13]. It may be they're not a native English speaker although I'm not sure of that [14] Nil Einne (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

April 4

Death of Theodoric the Great

Our article on him says that he died in 526, in Ravenna, but does not state his cause of death. Is it known? Vultur (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of legends about him, but it seems the cause is not known for certain. The two main explanations given by ancient historians are either that he died of remorse after executing Boethius and other decent people, or he died of typhoid or dysentery or some similar intestinal disorder[15][16] but I can't find any particularly authoritative references. There's also Legends about Theodoric the Great which is one of the most confusing and poorly-referenced Wikipedia pages I've ever read, and discusses theories that the legends may be about someone else. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There are lots of people from that time period who were quite famous, but for whom the cause of death is not well known. If someone wasn't killed in battle or assassinated (both rather common enough hazards for someone of Theodoric's position), the cause of death wasn't often well known. Consider the death of Attila. According to contemporary accounts, he choked on his own blood as the result of overdrinking while partying (basically the same way that Bon Scott died), but there were other historians that claimed his wife killed him, and some more contemporary historiographers have claimed that all accounts of his death are suspect and likely written for political reasons, so there may be no reliable source to account for how he died. --Jayron32 12:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Our Legends about Theodoric the Great article says: "Theodoric the Great was an Arian Christian and despised by the Catholic Church for a persecution resulting in the deaths of Boethius, Symmachus, and Pope John I. Theodoric's death shortly after these killings was seen as divine retribution and in a church tradition dating at least from Gregory the Great's Dialogues, Pope John and Symmachus's souls were said to have dropped Theodoric's soul into Mount Etna, to suffer there until the end of days." . Alansplodge (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Me again. This site quoting Getica (The Origin and Deeds of the Goths), by Jordanes; "When he had reached old age and knew that he should soon depart this life, he called together the Gothic counts and chieftains of his race and appointed Athalaric as king." So either old age or the wrath of God seems to be the answer. Alansplodge (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And no reason to say that they could not be one and the same. Googlemeister (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Although as divine retribution goes, it rather lacks drama. Maybe not one of God's better ones ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Conversely, some ancient figures died rather picturesque deaths, like Constans II, who was assassinated while bathing: the assassins bludgeoned him to death with his soap dish. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Question on Wikipedia content

No offense, just a free discussion. I was browsing Wikipedia:Featured articles and found some interesting statistics:

• Most FAs are related to Media/Films/Songs and Video games
• Compared to this there are ONLY 36 FAs on general Chemistry and mineralogy combined!!!
• Even fewer ONLY 19 FAs on Mathematics!!!!!
• Medicine has very few FAs
• Among the FAs on Geology and Geophysics, there are more history articles on individual earthquakes than articles on the science of Geology and Geophysics

So a conclusion can be drawn, which is very obvious, wikipedia has more coverage on individual films/songs and videos games (popular culture), than on science. The FAs on video games outnumber the FAs on medicine and chemistry combined. Any explanation? --Temporal back! (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

My own opinion would be that the areas listed would need expert contributors to bring them to FA status which we are possibly lacking in those departments. Mo ainm~Talk 15:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

All Wikipedia editors are volunteers. Most are quite young. Most people edit in areas that they are interested in (and know a bit about). More young people are interested in (and know a bit about) films, songs, video games (and individual earthquakes) than in medicine, chemistry, geology and geophysics. QED. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends on dumb luck, sometimes. You'll notice that there are a lot of good FAs on tropical cyclones. That's because there are a group of dedicated editors who work on those articles. If you find articles on minerology or chemical engineering or medicine or any other subject lacking, there is literally nobody to blame but yourself. Nothing at Wikipedia is done by anyone except lone individuals working on articles that interest them, and if you find that articles that interest you are of a poor quality, it is only because you did not fix them. You have no one to blame but yourself for Wikipedia's lack of quality. Shame on you! --Jayron32 16:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

FAs look for complete coverage of a topic, and as such it is easier to cover all the aspects of a particular hurricane, than, say predicting hurricanes. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Another possibility... being "Featured" can be a double edged sword... it can bring unwanted attention to an article, in the form of POV warring and vandalism. I have worked on at least two non-"pop culture" articles that could have been brought up at FAR and easily gained featured status, but the editors involved all agreed that doing so would cause more headaches than it is worth. We decided that it was better to have a really good article that remains under the radar and does not draw attention to itself. Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar: Which two articles were they? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And of course not everyone that writes articles has either the time or feels the urge to take a say B-class article any further, particularly if they are some form of 'expert' and have a day job. Mikenorton (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of us just don't care what status an article they wrote has. I could not possibly care less what my two primary content contributions get rated; I'd rather have the right information as opposed to some ranking on a website- which after all, is what articles status is here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The obvious answer is that anybody can write about popular culture, while it takes quite a bit of education, and often some expertise, to write about science or mathematics. Keep in mind as well that the credit culture of, say, academia, is quite different than that of Wikipedia. Most of the academic experts I have met see no incentive to edit Wikipedia — it is literally a waste of time from their point of view. I don't see it the same way myself, but the culture of the university system is quite insular in this regard, and at every point one is encouraged to focus only on that which improves one's CV. And editing Wikipedia does not do that. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, being a principal author of a featured article on Wikipedia does give you some degree of "bragging rights" on myspace, twitter and the pop-culture web-forums. So editors who focus on pop-culture do have an incentive to spend time and energy gaining a "featured" status for their articles. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The two major reasons have already been stated:

• People in general are more interested in popular culture than science or math.
• Anyone can write about pop culture but you need subject matter experts on science and math articles.

Here are a couple more:

• POV disputes. Some topics are beset by editors who are more interested in making sure a certain POV is expressed than actually improving the article.
• Online sources are more convenient to use, and you find lots of online sources for popular culture. Not so much for science and math, although that's changing I would think. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

These archived discussions link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 October 7#Common personality traits of wikipedians
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 September 13#Average age of the Wikipedians

—Wavelength (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Another point to consider is that the criteria for reviewing and featuring a pop culture article are easier to meet. To be a featured article you have to cover the topic, the entire topic, with no notable omissions or weak areas, using engaging prose and professional-quality writing. It's a lot easier to cover encyclopedically the entire topic of a pop celebrity than it is to cover in an encyclopedic manner every important point of a war or a field of science. Though I would like to add that Wikipedia's area of concentration oftentimes does cover more serious topics than lists of pokemon. Areas that collect fans with encyclopedic levels of knowledge tend to produce the best wikipedia areas, and as a result our coverage of history, especially military history and most especially modern military history, is virtually unrivaled and oftentimes professional quality. Some of our editors in those fields could easily write books on notable battles. Same goes for some technology areas. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Another question: out of the 3,603,291 articles present in Wikipedia, how many have more than 1000 words? Is there any statistics available? --Temporal back! (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

These statistics are rather out-of-date, and don't quite answer your question but, as of January 2010, only 45% of articles were larger than 2KB in size. That was gradually increasing, but I'm guessing that would only translate to around 200 to 400 words, once you've allowed for templates, images, categories, etc. Warofdreams talk 16:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I did a small scale statistical analysis here. Shadowjams (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

closed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My dog I love my dog, but how can i tell if he really loves me and is not just interested in food and walkies etc?--DartingFog (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC) I think you first have to examine what "really loves you" actually means. There are essentially two views on animal emotions (including dogs). One is that all animals are essentially just robots going through programmed motions — Behaviorism. The other is that they have complex emotional lives that are quite similar to what humans have. The behaviorists clearly went too far, mistaking a methodological proclamation (don't anthropomorphize animals) for a descriptive statement about the world (animals don't have human emotions, brains, etc.). There is absolutely no reason to suspect that relatively advanced mammals don't have similar neural hardware, and that things like love/hate/etc. aren't quite "base" emotions when it comes to brains (as opposed to all of the extra stuff we get with that extra forebrain). On the other hand, assuming that animals experience things the same way that we do is clearly false; we aren't even sure that other humans experience everything the same way we do, emotionally. I cast my lot with the "dogs probably do love you to some degree" camp. They seem to act as if they have an honest-to-god pack relationship with humans, which is good enough for me. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Great name, BTW DartingFog. In response you may want to read the article Emotion in animals. In short, this is a controversial topic among scientists, even those that study animal behavior in detail. One of the key problems with studying animal emotion is that animals cannot describe their inner thought processes (well most, some Apes and maybe even a bird or two can, but not dogs). In otherwords, we know humans feel love because they can communicate to us what they are feeling and can describe their own emotions and inner thoughts in ways that we can analyze and categorize. In humans this is called metacognition, the ability to think about one's own thinking. Dogs lack the apparatus to communicate at this level, so we don't know: a) If dogs can love... b) If dogs can love, then can they recognize love in themselves and others c) If dogs can love, and recognize it, can they tell others about what they feel (as distinct from merely showing what they feel). All three suppositions would have to be true before we could say definitively that dogs love. All we can say now is that dogs behave like they may experience love, but we cannot ask a dog "Do you know what love is? Have you experienced it before? Can you describe what love, in general feels like to you? Does what you feel now in Situation X, you feel love?" See, that requires both metacognition and a level of communication that dogs do not appear to be capable of. So, all we can say is they may exhibit behavior that we, as humans, sometimes interpret as love when we compare those behaviors to our own expectations, but we have no way to probe or study whether it is love, or whether we are merely projecting our own understanings onto the dog, even if the dog is doing something entirely differently. If it helps you to believe that what your dog does with you is "love", there is no harm in believing so. There's just no way, in a scientific manner, to say whether it is or it isn't. --Jayron32 20:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC) They love in a doggy way? They bask contentedly in the knowledge that their owner is around and cares for them? Whatever your cat is interested in food, sleeping and late nights out, end of story. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Most mammals and birds (and a few lower animals) seem to have a need for companionship, for at least part of their life. This can take the form of pair bonding or "parental love" or just a feeling of membership in a pack. StuRat (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Dogs don't pair bond (males mate with any bitch in heat)... they are pack animals and bond with (love?) fellow pack members. Domesticated canines have learned to substitute humans for their pack. What is important is that you be the pack leader. Blueboar (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC) This is another LC sock, who has posed variations on this trolling question in the recent past. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC) I think many of us figured that apparently including some who posted. Nil Einne (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Banned uses are not allowed to edit, nor should they be responded to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC) LC? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC) A banned user named "Light current". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

April 5

GK Geography question

Which non-european metro has a European name and also one of the largest in that country

I would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.228.20 (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's see, New York (as in Yorkshire), Cincinnati (named after a Roman), Norfolk, Virginia (same as the county in England), Wellington (as in the Duke of), Perth, Western Australia (Scottish name). Those are the more notable that come to mind. Googlemeister (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There are probably dozens of possibilities. New York City has a European name, being of course named after York. Montreal has a "European" name in the sense that it's a French word (Mount Royal, or Royal Mountain), and French was spoken in Europe before it was spoken in Canada. Both anchor one of the largest metro areas in their respective countries. List of largest cities and second largest cities by country would help you in your search. --Jayron32 13:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

New York is named after the Duke of York rather than York itself. Proteus (Talk) 22:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, because the Duke's title bears no connection to the City of York at all... --Jayron32 22:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course it does, but that doesn't make what you said correct. It's misleading to imply (as you did) that New York is named directly after York, with no intervening steps, just as it would be to imply (as Googlemeister did not) that Wellington in New Zealand was named directly after the small town of the same name in Somerset rather than the famous soldier. Proteus (Talk) 13:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It was New Amsterdam before it was New York. Besides, the question was a European name, not a European city name. Googlemeister (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

As usual, the questions from this site are horribly under-specified, and can have many "correct" answers. Knowing which one they are after is virtually never possible. The "one of the largest" bit makes it even more difficult to guess, since that could mean anything from top 2 to top 50%. Auckland is named after the Earl of Auckland for example. Since GK is unusually quite US-centric, I'd go for somewhere in the US. St. Petersburg, FL is obviously named after St. Petersburg, but not one of the largest by any definition. Birmingham, AL could be the answer. There is a Boston in England: Boston, Lincolnshire. Baltimore is named after a title in the Peerage of Ireland. Whether Santiago de Chile has a European name can be debated. There is for example Santiago de Compostela in Spain. I could go on... /Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If we tell you the answer, will you share the prize with us? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What's GK? Nyttend (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP is based in Mumbai, if that helps. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps they wanting the name of a transport metro. But nothing on List of metro systems seems right. (and what is GK?) Gwinva (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

General Knowledge Rojomoke (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't everyone know that?  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that's not generally known. Gwinva (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is now. Everyone reads the Wikipedia Reference Desks, don't they? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The word "Metro" has a European (French) origin[17], so any system called "Metro" would have a European name. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It is this one, right? [18] In that case, the answer was New Amsterdam, Guyana. The OP didn't provide all the info in the clues, e.g. that it is a really small place. Reading the clues, their answer, and the explanations, I definitely stand by my previous statements of "horribly under-specified" and "many correct answers" /Coffeeshivers (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. What do you bet the OP already knew the answer? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Abe Lincoln bodyguards

Who protected Abe Lincoln from assassination during the US Civil War? I would think he would have a company of troops protecting him because he was president when the front lines were within 50 miles of DC. Surely they would have thought spies from the South might try to assassinate him and would not stick with his usual protective complement (which in 1865 was quite poor quality). Googlemeister (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You'd be surprised; I imagine there was actually very little personal protection for him. Certainly, Washington D.C. itself would have had some troops protecting it, but I am not sure that there would have been a specific bodyguard or detail assigned to the President directly. The United States Secret Service was actually created by Lincoln shortly before he died, but it didn't gain its role as a Presidential bodyguard until after the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901. Prior to the Secret Service, the major Federal Police force was the United States Marshals Service, but that article makes no mention of Bodyguard duties for the President (though today, one of their promary rôles is to guard witnesses whose lives are threatened). Prior to the twentieth century, there was almost no security at the White House at all. You could literally walk up to the front door and ring the doorbell. White_House#Public_access_and_security notes that Abraham Lincoln was " was constantly beleaguered by job seekers waiting to ask him for political appointments or other favors." In other words, it sounds like that during the Civil War, you could go right up to the White House and pester the President directly; given that any one of these "job seekers" could have concealed a weapon rather easily, it seems as if security measures were nonexistant. --Jayron32 13:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought the army would fill in that role during the war. Googlemeister (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As president-elect, Lincoln was helped partly by the Pinkerton Agency... AnonMoos (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, upon deeper research, Presidential security may have been managed by the Pinkerton National Detective Agency. Apparently Allan Pinkerton helped foil the Baltimore Plot to assassinate Lincoln before his inauguration. In Abraham_Lincoln#1860_election_and_secession it mentions he was under substantial military security for his inauguration festivities, though it is unclear if this was standard security for his presidency, or a special security for the inauguration only. According to Abraham_Lincoln#Assassination, he had a personal bodyguard, but he stepped out for drinks during the play and left Lincoln totally unguarded. So, it does appear that atleast at some times there were varying degrees of "security" provided, though it does seem comicly inadequate compared to what sorts of security the modern President gets. --Jayron32 14:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ward Hill Lamon was Lincoln's primary bodyguard. —Kevin Myers 20:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This question was answered in the very recent past. Perhaps someone could link to it. Several police officers of Washington DC were detailed to guard the President, if I recall correctly 2 per shift during the day and one at night when he was at home in the White House. Some of them were very skilled, by all reports, unlike Lamon. One of the other officers wrote a history of his duty guarding the President. Edison (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The night of the assassination, there were attempts on other high-ranking government officials as part of a broader conspiracy. There is or was a school of thought that it was an "inside job", which would make the apparent incompetence of Lincoln's bodyguard that evening possibly more than coincidental. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

On April 3rd, Lincoln landed in Richmond itself and walked a mile or two to the Confederate White House with only half a dozen Marines and a different bodyguard. Although the plan was to arrive on the USS Malvern but it ran aground and Lincoln landed in a smaller boat ahead of most of the Marines sent with him. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Public accessibility gets sacrificed as people get smarter about things. Look at JFK riding in an open car in a public street, for example. The President doesn't do that anymore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

So no "Palace Guard" for the Whitehouse during the Civil War then? Googlemeister (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, the average citizen could walk into the White House and theoretically get an audience with Lincoln, after maybe just a couple of interceptions by staff. Assassinations tend to chill excessive openness. Targets of the attempts weren't always as lucky and resourceful as was Andrew Jackson, whose assailant had to be rescued from Jackson by the President's own people, after the pistols misfired and Jackson starting thrashing the jerk with his cane. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that, prior to the 20th century, the President is a citizen-President and any semblance of royalness was discouraged. Thus, many of the 18th and 19th century presidents lived very differently than the modern ones. The federal government provided the White House, but literally that was it, many early presidents had to provide their own staff and furnishings out of their own wealth or salary. Because of this, many of the early presidents lost a LOT of money while president; one speculation is that the "two-term" convention which existed from Washington was that the early presidents couldn't afford in a financial sense to be President much longer than that. See especially this document which describes how Jefferson was quite literally bankrupted from the expenses he incurred while he was President. IIRC I read somewhere that Jefferson sent letters on his own stationary that he paid for because there was no appropriation for official Presidential stationary even for official government business. When the first telephones were installed in the White House, I think it was during the Cleveland presidency, if you called the White House, the president himself answered, as paying someone to answer for him would have come out of his own funds. It seems quite likely that Lincoln's bodyguards would have been paid by him personally, and not by the federal government, given the conventions of the time regarding these things. Lincoln may not have been able to afford a better security detail than he had. --Jayron32 16:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Islam Europe

Which European nations are becoming anti-Islamic nowadays, with far-right wing parties in legislature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.15 (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Your question involves an assumption that I think is incorrect: that any European nation with a far-right party in its legislature is a nation that is becoming anti-Islamic. Nations that have far-right parties in their legislatures often have anti-Islamic minorities, but it isn't fair to say that those nations as a whole are becoming anti-Islamic just because a far-right party gets some votes. On the other hand, it may be that some of those countries have a growing number of people with anti-Islamic views, in some cases a number approaching a majority of the population, but I don't think the presence or not of a far-right party in the legislature is a good criterion for identifying those countries. Marco polo (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

According to this source, a recent study has found that a majority of people in Denmark and the Netherlands have a positive attitude toward Islam, even though far-right parties have a presence in the parliaments of those three countries. By contrast, even though no far-right party has a presence in Germany's national parliament, a majority of Germans have a negative attitude toward Islam. It isn't clear from this article how those attitudes have been changing over time. Marco polo (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

So which voting system do they use please? If the elected members do not corrersponmd with peoples views, then it may not be doing a good job. Thanks 92.24.184.244 (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be true if the only issue that mattered were being "anti-Islamic". However, people vote for politicians for a very great number of reasons, both economic and social. A homeowner living in the suburbs of Munich may support a politician because the politician wants to repeal a water tax that the homeowner hates; the homeowner may not have any idea on the politician's views on Islam, Islamic immigrants, Islamic religious displays, Islamic culture, or anything else. Any politician doesn't totally reflect all of the views of all the electorate. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's partly a "return of the repressed" -- during much of the 1970s to 1990s, in some countries there was kind of an elite consensus which slapped a smiley-face on multiculturalist policies, which were considered to be de facto off-limits for respectable public discussion (except by sociologists with degrees, who published articles full of professional jargon in scholarly journals), so that anyone who even sought to raise the issue of possible problems with the way that immigration was working out in European societies was automatically branded a new Enoch Powell or vicious racist of the lowest order. The predictable result was that when concerns over results of immigration finally boiled over and became public in a way that could no longer be ignored (partly as a result of 9/11, partly due to other factors), those expressing such concerns were often allied with far-right-wing political movements, and/or extremely disdainful and contemptuous of those who had been shoring up the multicultural pseudo-consensus of previous decades. In several European countries (including France), "center-right" parities have now taken up issues of Muslim integration in order to prevent "far-right" parties from siphoning off votes from the "center-right" party... AnonMoos (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's simplistic - and wrong - to say rightwing = anti-Islamic. The traditional left and right political spectrum is related more closely to economic ideologies than racial or religious viewpoints. What you are describing is nationalism, which can be held by people of various political persuasions (eg. communist (far-left) states can be extremely nationalistic). Gwinva (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

More populism than nationalism, IMO. AnonMoos gave a fair representation of one of the basic arguments used by many parties that have been called anti-muslim and/or xenophobic.Sjö (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's fair to say that the leading far-right parties of the countries I mentioned—the Danish People's Party in Denmark, the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands—are anti-Muslim. As for the second question, Denmark and the Netherlands have forms of proportional representation, such that even relatively small minorities can have representation in their parliaments. Marco polo (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Denmark has an election threshold of 2% and the Netherlands doesn't have a treshold, but a party there needs about 0.7% of the vote to win a seat. That means that a very, very small minority can win represenation in the parliament and the presence of a far right party in the parliament doesn't prove much about the general attitudes in that country.Sjö (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The Global Attitudes Project from the Pew Research Center asks these kinds of questions. This survey is from 2008 but it asked respondents in several large European countries if they had negative feelings towards Muslims.[19] It also shows that there is more anti-Muslim sentiment on the right than the left although the difference isn't as significant as some might expect. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that anti-Islamic sentiments are endemic in Western culture, and have been so for centuries. Practically all Europeans (including many people who consider themselves as progressives or anti-racists) carry some attitudes originating in colonialist mindset on how to view the world. That said, many people in say northern Sweden in the 1920's would have been quite indifferent to the issue of Islam, as they would never interact with Muslims or come into contact with the Muslim world in any deeper sense during their lifetime. But in a new context of oil wars and new streams of migration, anti-Islamic sentiments deeply rooted in Western culture reappear and readapt to the new scenario.

Now the advance of the far-right/populist parties is one aspect of this phenomenon, but is rather a sympthom of it. Established political parties, particularily on the right, have been open to reajust their policies and discourse to draw voters from xenophobic/Islamophobic sectors. In Danish the Danish People's Party (the key anti-immigration populist party) got 13.9% in the last election, but on the other side all parliamentary parties have played with appeasement of Islamophobics in one way or another (albeit in very warying degrees) in recent years. --Soman (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe some of it comes from memories of centuries of Muslim aggressions and invasions (which are not completely forgotten or "dead" history in parts of eastern or southeastern Europe), rather than the alleged "colonialist mindset"[sic]. During the 1,050 years from 633 to 1682, Muslims were overall more aggressive and successful in attacking Christians than Christians were aggressive and successful in attacking Muslims. That makes over ten centuries of Muslim colonialism and less than three centuries of Christian colonialism... AnonMoos (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

British Iranians, British Afghanis, British Turks

Which cities or places in England has the largest Iranian populations? Which places in England has the largest Afghanis populations? Which places in England has the largest Turks populations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.15 (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty much a guess, but I would suggest London as the answer to all three. Mikenorton (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

.. and it probably depends whether you mean absolute numbers or proportions. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

See Iranians in the United Kingdom, Afghans in the United Kingdom, and Turks in the United Kingdom. Going by absolute numbers, London is unsurprisingly the answer to all three questions. 130.88.134.206 (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

At 14.6% Muslim, Luton is probably one of the highest in terms of percentage, although I don't have the complete breakdown by ethnicity. See Luton#Ethnicity. StuRat (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that most British Muslims would be of sub-continental descent, rather than from Iran, Turkey or Afghanistan. DuncanHill (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably, but there's a big Turkish supermarket at the end of my road in London, and an Afghan chap drove into the back of my car a few years ago. Alansplodge (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Prishtina to be added on watchlist

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to raise an important issue regarding the Pristina/Prishtina page on Wikipedia.

I have recently noticed that there have been changes indicating that Pristina is part of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.

Since there is an ongoing dispute about this topic, I would appreciate to add Pristina in the watchlist of Wikipedia.

In addition, Pristina can be described as being the capital of Kosovo (not Republic of Kosovo or the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija) - in this way Wikipedia will remain impartial.

Regards, Kprishtina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kprishtina (talk • contribs) 20:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, there is no "Wikipedia watch list". Each user can select page they want to keep track of and add them to their watch list by clicking the 'star' in the top-right of the screen. If there are issues with the article in question, please raise them on the talk page. If the article is being vandalised, please notify an administrator or experienced user who will revert the vandalism and apply protection to the page in question. Please ask any future questions on the Wikipedia:Help Desk as the reference desk is for inquiries about finding information out rather than questions or issues with Wikipedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There's Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts‎ if the matter goes beyond what can be reasonably dealt with on a single article talk page and/or you want to get some outside opinions... AnonMoos (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Raised churchyard graves

I was in an old churchyard in England recently, with many headstones from the 19th. and a few from the 18th. century.

Some of the graves were not flat but had raised stone structures. Were the coffins placed in the raised part without digging a grave, or were they always just ornamental? Thanks 92.24.188.223 (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

They are usually just ornamental. I think English church monuments is the relevant article, although it's mostly about those inside churches. --Tango (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Moved Tango's reply, which for some reason was after the following question. --ColinFine (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Placing a stone directly over the burial site is not unusual. Look at President Truman's marker, for example.[20] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

In this view of Truman's grave it is obvious that the coffin is not above ground. His burial was in 20th century USA not 18th nor 19th century England. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The tomb of William the Conqueror, who lived in 11th century England, is covered by a stone slab. The point being that covering graves with a stone slab is not unusual. If this is not what the OP had in mind, perhaps he could find an illustration? The pictures in the article cited don't seem to square with the OP's question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The OP is talking about a Chest tomb; " ...a memorial shaped like a stone box or cist, the whole of which is above ground. The body of its subject was usually buried beneath the memorial, not in the chest itself. The chief advantage of this type of memorial is that it is more obvious than a headstone, and it provided its sculptor with five surfaces for decoration." From a very informative article here. Alansplodge (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I know what the OP is on about. They look like this: a rectangular structure above ground, dimensions about 3 feet high x 7 feet long x 2 feet wide, on which are engraved the occupants of the tome which is below the structure. There was one in the churchyard where I went to Sunday school, and when it was opened for a new burial us older ones went and had a look. The structure covered a set of steps down to a larger tomb underground, with room for 8 - 10 bodies. They are quite a common feature in English churchyards, and I'm blowed if I know the correct term for them! --TammyMoet (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

An English table tomb

They're called table tombs. Here is a picture of one. DuncanHill (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Also "altar tombs". Some more reading here. Alansplodge (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

One might refer to such a tomb as a Sarcophagus, see this picture. The Wikipedia article Tomb gives a list of repositories for the dead. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Although a Sarcophagus usually contains a corpse, whereas a chest tomb is constructed over a grave or vault and is usually empty. Alansplodge (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Farmhouse or Hall?

Was there any customary rule that determined if a farmhouse was just a farmhouse or if it was called a "Hall"? In south-east england recently I saw a few old country dwellings that were called "Something Hall", but - 1) they looked like ordinary old farmhouses, 2) the occupiers/owners were not aristocratic as far as I know, 3) there was no village of the same name as the Halls. Thanks 92.24.188.223 (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You can call your property anything you want so long as copyright infringment is not involved. I myself have some beautiful property in Guatemala which I chose to call Castillo Alacran ( scorpion castle) there's no castle there. I doesn't matter. It's just a name, not a discription.190.148.132.192 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

[Indented 190's post to clarify that I'm answering the OP.] "Hall" usually implied that the occupier owned the building and associated lands, and may well have owned other farms or houses on his/her land that were occupied by tenants. Since such buildings in England not infrequently retain their names for long periods and through changes of ownership, it may be that the families who previously owned them had more status than the current occupiers, and/or that long-term changes in the area (such as some of the land associated with the halls being sold, or grander buildings being subsequently built nearby) have reduced their former relative importance: a country house that once merited being called a hall may well seem quite modest by later standards. It's also possible that the buildings you saw were originally outbuildings of now-demolished larger halls, but have retained the names of the original establishments. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

According to EO,[21] the term "hall" originally meant any kind of covered building. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

In the US, at least, the fancier sounding the name, the more humble the residence. (Any place called an "Estate" is likely to be a trailer park.) StuRat (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup... and in just about any retirement community there will be at least one house named "Dun Roamin"... very few of which started out as a Celtic hill fort. Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Burning treasure

In the Beowulf epic, we read that the treasure the dragon guarded was to be destroyed by burning on Beowulf's funeral pyre (because it's all cursed).

[…] A lelt kincs legjava

halomban hamvad el a hőssel együtt,

a szörnyű áron nyert számtalan ékesség,

az átkos ártalom, kiért urunk utóbb

életét áldozta; tűz foga falja fel,

láng nyelve nyalja fel; […]

(Beowulf, line 3009, translation by Szegő György)

Arany János mentions simlar destroying of treasures in the ballad Szondi két apródja (this time so that the enemy can't get it).

A vár piacára ezüstöt, aranyt,

Sok nagybecsü marhát máglyába kihordat;

Harcos paripái nyihognak alant:

 Szügyeikben tőrt keze forgat.

But can you really destroy treasure by burning? Most of it is jewelery made of precious metal and gemstones, plus ornamental metalic weapons. I imagine that burning these would not harm them too much. The fire probably wouldn't even destroy the fine handmade ornaments on these relics: they've survived sitting centuries in a dragon's lair so they must be sturdy. Beowulf has specifically chosen to fight against the dragon with a metallic shield because the fire the dragon breathes would destroy a wooden shield (though this itself seems a bit counterintuitive to me: while a metallic shield wouldn't get destroyed, it would glow so hot he couldn't hold it, and I doubt a dragon could quickly burn a good wooden shield). Even if the treasure is destroyed, much of the value is in the raw material gold and sliver, which could still be regained.

So my question is, is it practical to burn treasures to destroy them? Was it done in reality? – b_jonas 22:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Remember, this is mythology. Anything is possible. If the treasure happens to be a manuscript, for example, then fire will do it.190.148.132.192 (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate note. The last dragon I knew breathed a lot fire but couldn't even boil water.190.149.154.160 (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Metals wouldn't be changed into non-metals, but in a hot fire the bronze would melt, the silver would soften and pick up impurities, and the non-metallic components of, say, a chest would burn, so that things would be somewhat transformed... AnonMoos (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Amber will disintegrate in a very modest fire. Semi-precious minerals like lapis and onyx, if they have decent sized mineral inclusions, may fracture along those inclusions. Some of the treasures of Sutton Hoo and the Staffordshire Hoard were extremely finely made, with detailed work that would surely be destroyed by a fire. Someone might reasonably believe that the "thing" was this fine craftsmanship, and that its reduction to its constituent metals would "unmake" it, and maybe remove the curse. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 00:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I wonder how many modern-day crematoria try to convince their customers that those gold wedding rings and teeth were all burned up in the flue... Wnt (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Funny. Or maybe not. Generally speaking, jewelry is removed from the hands of the deceased, especially for cremation, although some might forget. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me if this seems rude, but may I suggest that in the future you translate into English any Hungarian excerpts you wish to discuss? My friend from Kosice assures me that Hungarian is a beautiful language, but I doubt most people on this page can understand it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"A lelt kincs legjava". Something about a leg with a kink in it, and coffee. What's not to understand? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Google translate cannot totally handle this, but here's what it came up with for the second (Hungarian) item:

The castle is the market of silver, gold,

Bonfire Forwarders nagybecsü many cattle;

Warrior horses whinny below:

Szügyeikben wield a dagger in his hand

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Luckily there are English translations available of both.

and bear the bountiful breaker-of-rings

to the funeral pyre. No fragments merely

shall burn with the warrior. Wealth of jewels,

gold untold and gained in terror,

treasure at last with his life obtained,

all of that booty the brands shall take,

fire shall eat it. […]

Beowulf, part XXXIX, translated by Francis Barton Gummere, from Project Gutenberg

"On the fortress' square all the silver and gold

Szondi has them build a treasure-pyre mighty;

with dagger in hand he must, fearless and bold,

put to death every whinnying palfrey."

Arany János, The two pages of Szondi, translation by Makkai, Adam

– b_jonas 08:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

April 6

PIRA vs. Tugendhat

Resolved

I'm trying to refimprove the part of the Christopher Tugendhat, Baron Tugendhat article about the Provisional IRA's attack on him in 1980. It's easy for me to reference that he was attacked and that the attack missed (Tim Pat Coogan's The IRA and Christopher Andrew's Defence of the Realm both do that, but in passing). Finding a reference for the date, location, and other details isn't so easy. 1980 in the Irish Republican Army dates it at 17th December in Brussels, but is unsourced. Can anyone (perhaps with access to some newspaper archive that Google can't find for me) see if they can find a decent report of the incident (and of the PIRA's belated admission of responsibility)? -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 00:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

From The Times (london, england), Thursday, Dec 04, 1980; pg. 1; Issue 60793 - "Tugendhat Escape in Brussells shooting" From Michael Hornsby, Brussells, Dec 03.

Shots were fired today at Mr Christopher Tugendhat, the British EEC Commisioner in charge of the Community's budget, as he left home for work. Nobody was hurt.

Mr Tugendhat left his house in the Ixelles district of Brussells at 9.15am to drive to the European Commissions offices. His wife, Julia, was with him.

Two shots were fired from a stationary car with either one or two men inside. One bullet narrowly missed Mr Tugendhat because he moved unexpectedly. The second struck his car.

The assailants then drove off at speed. Their car was reported to have Dutch number plates, giving rise to suspicion that the attack might have been made by Irish Republican sympathizers or activists based in The Netherlands.

Mr Tugendhat said later : "It was closer than I would have liked," He refused to speculate on the motives for the attack.

It is thought that the attack could be related to the hunger strike by IRA detainess demanding political status in the Maze prison in Belfast.

A spokesman for the Commission said that Mr Tugendhat would be given a permanent bodyguard until further notice. Usually only Mr Roy Jenkins, President of the European Commission, is given round-the-clock security protection.

A British spokesman declined to say whether any special security measures would be taken to protect diplomats as a result of today's incident. He said : "Our security precautions are always under review, and we are well aware of the risks of the present situation."

In a statement, the Commission said it had been shocked to learn of the attack and "unreservedly condemns violent acts of this kind. It expresses its sympathy and support for Mr Tugendhat and his family".

Mr Tugendhat's wife is known under her maiden name, Julia Dobson, as an author of children's books. They have two sons both of whom were at school at the time of the shooting.

Mr Tugendhat, who is 43 and a former Conservative MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, joined the Commission in 1977. He has been reappointed for another four-year term starting in January and hopes to retain control of the budget portfolio.

The IRA claimed responsibility for the killing of Sir Richard Sykes, the British Ambassador in The Hague in March 1979.

HTH. Nanonic (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That's just the ticket. Thanks! -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 09:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

flat round static dynamic character

This may sound like a homework question but it isn't. In The Cask of Amontillado, which character is flat, which character is round, which character is static and which character is dynamic? In Trifles, which character is flat, which character is round, which character is static and which character is dynamic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.40.171 (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What you appear to be asking is about a specific type of character theory which classifies characters into types known as "flat" "static" "dynamic" and "round". I am not familiar with this particular theory, but likely you have been exposed to it if you are answering the question. That is, whether or not this is a homework problem, in the context of where you got the question from should have been presented the definitions of "flat" "static" etc. characters. So you need to find those definitions, read them, and then apply them to the characters from the story. --Jayron32 02:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Found a little bit more: the wikipedia article and section Character_(arts)#Dynamic_vs._static has a very brief, unreferenced description of some of your character types, but does not go into enough detail to be useful, unfortunately. --Jayron32 03:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Who produced The Lonely Island's "We're Back!"?

I haven't been able to find out who the producer is. I'm thinking it might be DJ Khaled, since they say on their web site: "Ask DJ Khaled, WE THE BEST!" I haven't been able to confirm this, however, and the album is not out until May 10. Anyone knows how to find this kind of information? Lampman (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Aztecs and Spaniards

Hello. I just read the fascinating article about Tlaxcala. It made me wonder, though, how did the two civilizations, Spanish and Tlaxcala, with cultures totally isolated from each other until then, manage to forge diplomatic treaties and military alliances, while without a common language, I'd assume even trading would be difficult? 212.68.15.66 (talk) 07:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Presumably they would have developed a pidgin to communicate in. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

See Malinche, for example. --Belchman (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Malinche is a key part of the story, but there were others like her. The stories of Gerónimo de Aguilar and Gonzalo Guerrero demonstrate that there was contact between Spaniards and Mesoamerican peoples (in this case, Maya). Before Cortes conquered the Aztecs, he landed in Maya territory and made contact with people who could speak both a Mayan language and Nahuatl, the language of the Aztecs. As we know, there were at least two people who could speak the same Mayan language (probably Chontal). These bilinguals would have been able to instruct others, and, since Cortes acquired a number of indigenous allies, such as Tlaxcala, we can assume that some of them learned Spanish, initially most likely from the bilinguals accompanying Cortes. Marco polo (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

How to read and appreciate poetry

I am able to appreciate poetry when listening to it being read by a good narrator. However if I pick up a poetry book and read to myself it is just not enjoyable - it is mentally more like a list of words than hearing a poem. Is reading and enjoying poetry something you can learn? If so how? -- Q Chris (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Try Harold Bloom's How to Read and Why (New York: 2000. ISBN 0-684-85906-8). Lampman (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Poetry is not just about the lexical meaning of whatever the words are. It's also about the music in the words. The reason you like listening to a narrator is that you can hear the music in the words. Reading poetry in silence is like reading a musical score in silence: you might get a rough sense of what's going on, but it does not reveal its true glories until you hear it out loud. So, stop reading poetry to yourself and start reading it out loud. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bloom says the same, and he also recommends memorizing poems as a means of really appreciating them. —Kevin Myers 12:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, especially for works where there's greater or more sophisticated use of alliteration and syncopation (as opposed to more straightforward rhyming iambic lines or something). I've read a decent amount of poetry and can tell you that, with practice, you can essentially "read aloud in your head" so that you can capture more of what the poet is going for without, say, disturbing everyone else in the library. :) I'm sure there's lots of ways to develop the skill; I did it more-or-less accidentally as I whispered and then lip-sync'ed and then "read aloud in my head" the stuff I was reading to avoid bothering others (and being embarrassed for moving my lips while reading...). Matt Deres (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will order the book and try learning and reading aloud. -- Q Chris (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, reading aloud is a great way to improve your understanding and enjoyment of poetry. Find a nice spot in a park or up on the Downs, down by the sea, curled up in a branch of your favourite tree or wherever, and go for it! DuncanHill (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

cleanup after Hiroshima?

How were they able to cleanup the residual radioactivity after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, such that people again live there? Will people ever again be able to live in the Fukushima exclusion zone?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The article about the bomb itself, Little Boy, has at least some information on the subject of radiation. The bomb was detonated in the air, so there was no bomb crater and not much local fallout. Regarding the Fukushima exclusion zone, I suspect it's apples-and-oranges comparison, as you might be dealing with issues like the radioactive half-life of the materials. A look at Chernobyl disaster might give some clues. They're basically still working on it, almost 25 years later. Meanwhile, in 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami I'm not seeing anything about an exclusion zone. What did I overlook? Does wikipedia have anything specifically about that zone? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a nice discussion of this here and here, by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation. Of note: "As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki proper, the longest-lasting induced radionuclide that occurred in amounts sufficient to cause concern was cesium-134 (with a half-life of about 2 years)." I don't think they did clean up the residual radioactivity — they just rebuilt. People who lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki immediately after the bombings did have a statistically significant increase in leukemia and solid cancers in the immediate five years or so after the bombs went off, but it was not huge compared to the background level, and I'm not sure how much of that is attributed to residual radioactivity rather than the acute exposure of those there right as or immediately after the bombs went off. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A bit tangential, but one of the Japanese bomb articles talked about some poor schmo who was in Hiroshima on business and suffered burns from the bomb but was otherwise OK. Luckily, he made it back to his home within a couple of days - in Nagasaki! He lived a fairly long time despite exposure to both bombs, but he did eventually die from cancer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's true. There are a number "double survivors" who were exposed to both bombs. On the up side, surviving two atomic bombs, while not ideal from a long-term health point of view, can be seen as fairly lucky. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

[ec] The relevant articles about Fukushima are Fukushima I nuclear accidents and Japanese reaction to Fukushima I nuclear accidents. The danger from radiation from these nuclear accidents is vastly greater than the radiation danger from the World War II bombs. As the article Little Boy points out, each of these bombs contained less than a kilogram of radioactive material, which was dispersed in the atmosphere. As this article points out, there are about 4,277 metric tons, or more than 4 million kilograms, of radioactive material concentrated at the Fukushima reactor site. Marco polo (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec twice) See also the map in Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents. As for Hiroshima, our article air burst says For the Hiroshima bomb an air burst 1800 to 2000 feet (550 to 610m) above the ground was chosen "to achieve maximum blast effects, and to minimize residual radiation on the ground as it was hoped our troops would soon occupy the city". Oda Mari (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Chernobyl is the right analogy. It seems more and more likely that a meltdown cannot be avoided, in which case the exclusion zone would probably need to be extended and would remain uninhabitable perhaps for centuries. Marco polo (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

According to International Nuclear Event Scale, Chernobyl is the only level 7 while the Japan incidents are 5's. If what you say is true, they might have to invent a level 8. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It is likely that multiple partial meltdowns have already occurred. This is what that event looks like. There is little possibility of any further meltdowns, massive fallout releases or of any further core breaches. The reactors and storage pools are being cooled now and decay heat in the reactors that were running at the time of the accidents is almost entirely gone. For instance, a meltdown occurred at Three Mile Island - but there is no permanent exclusion zone and there were no deaths linked to that event. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are at odds with recently published news articles on the topic. According to this source, a real risk of a complete meltdown remains. In such a meltdown, the radioactive material would melt through the bottom of the containment vessel and into the environment. Furthermore, according to this recent article, there is a risk of explosions shooting radioactive material into the air, where wind could spread it, similar to Chernobyl. The people attempting to control the reactors have not found a sustainable way to keep them cool. Continuing to pour water on them could only result in a steady release of radioactive water into the environment over an unknown duration of time and could risk a further dangerous compromise of the containment structures (due to the weight of the water). I'm not sure what is the basis for your claim that there is "little possibility" of any further meltdowns or your claim that that the decay heat in the reactors is "almost entirely gone." Can you provide sources? Marco polo (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Pouring water also has to be done very carefully; if the water is too cold, you can break the uranium rods and create another huge mess, as is what happened in Hungary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

And adding cold water to very hot rods is part of what creates the hydrogen/oxygen mixture that leads to potential small-scale explosions, which can damage the containment dome, etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Solvency of Railroad Retirement Vs. Social Security

I've looked into railroading as a career, and after reading job descriptions and lists of benefits, they all mention that railroaders receive "Railroad Retirement" benefits, rather than social security. Railroad retirement is presented as a parallel system to social security, but exclusively for railroad workers. Given the issues surrounding the solvency of social security, I am wondering if Railroad Retirement has similar issues. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 17:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Guessing that you might be talking about the US, I suppose the Railroad Retirement Board might be relevant. I don't see that it discusses your question, but from what it does say about funding it does not seem likely to me that its prospects will be very different from social security. --ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Stalin denounces "leftism" in music

Hey all. [22] is a 1936 Pravda article review of Lady Macbeth by Shostakovich. The article was possibly written by Stalin and certainly in line with prevailing Soviet opinion of the time. It includes, for example, attacks on the "petty bourgeois" nature of the opera. But it also criticises it, as I read it, of being "leftist" (Левацкое in the original, I think), obviously meant as some sort of counterpoint to socialist realism rather than the conventional sense of the term. What exactly did this imply? I can't find information on it anywhere. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]}

Hey you. Some good starting points would be:

• Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District (opera)
• Dmitri Shostakovich#First denunciation and Dmitri Shostakovich#Second denunciation, and
• Zhdanov Doctrine. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A guess: Left Opposition. If "Leftist" for Stalin means Left Opposition, then he's probably using it as a blanket way for associating it with Trotskyism, which as you probably know was a common Stalinist tactic for declaring that something that ostensibly looked socialist was really anti-Soviet. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't know exactly what "left-wing" would have meant in that context, but the key terms in Stalinist art criticism were Socialist realism vs. so-called "Formalism"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

See also "Music: Young Russia", a 1938 New York Times article by Artur Rodziński. Quote: "Two years ago, Soviet Russia officially banned "Leftist" tendencies in music and art, held up James Joyce's polyperverse novel Ulysses, "written in English that can hardly be understood by Englishmen," as a celebrated example. Two years before that, Nazi Germany had banned exactly the same types of modernistic art as kulturbolschewistisch". ---Sluzzelin talk 06:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Orlando Figes lists a number of attacks "against the artistic avant-garde", a "continuing campaign" at that time, in the 1930s. The Joyce criticism came from Karl Radek who called Ulysses "a dung heap swarming with maggots and photograped by a movie camera through a microscope", referring to the maggot scene zoom-in on rotting meat in Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin. Eisenstein's work was a victim too; Bezhin Meadow came to an ordered halt, and was denounced "for its 'formalist' and religious character". Figes sees the Pravda's severe attack on Lady Macbeth as yet another element in this campaign. Quote:

"This renewed assault against the avant-garde involved a counter-revolution in cultural politics. As the 1930s wore on, the regime completely abandoned its commitment to the revolutionary idea of establishing a 'proletarian' or 'Soviet' form of culture that could be distinguished from the culture of the past. Instead, it promoted a return to the nationalist traditions of the nineteenth century, which it reinvented in its own distorted forms as Socialist Realism."

Orlando Figes, Natasha's Dance - A Cultural History of Russia, Penguin Books, 2002, p 480, ISBN 9780140297966. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

For an earlier example, see also OBERIU. A lot of the poets had written and performed under names containing the word "leftist", which in the late 1920s meant avant-garde, culturally, but Trotskyist, politically, as pointed out by Mr.98. The Leningrad Press Club (the venue where the poets performed in public) "insisted" on a name-change which led to the new name OBERIU. But it made no difference in the end, as "Stalin's purges precluded the formation of any such "leftist" or "radical" public artistic groupings" and this particular group stopped performing after 1931. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A guess, but perhaps the Swedish "vänsterism" could be an equivalent. It is a term rarely used outside the left itself, and carries a negative connotation of being overly radical/dogmatic. The same as differntiation between "Radical" and "Radicalist". --Soman (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I unfortunately know no Swedish and have no way of sensing the meaning of this interesting word, but one thing I'd like to point out is that Pravda's usage of "leftist" means quite the opposite of overly dogmatic. It was particularly the absurdists, surrealists or nihilists, but also other modernist deviants from dogma that irked those who strived to please Stalin against their better cultural judgment (e.g. Radek). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

does the e in the google logo look like it's laughing?

I am visually impaired and cannot see in such detail. Would you say the e in the google logo looks like it's laughing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.96.11 (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I suppose it does. Looking at the Google logo article, it says the font used is Catull BQ, which has the same lower-case 'e' (that is, this isn't a typographical whimsy of Google's). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 20:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent link. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's been that way for years and someone finally picked up on that. Kind of like the FedEx logo, which appears to have a subliminal "arrow" within it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Or that the Toyota Trucks logo looks like Frank Zappa's mustache (Google Image it...) Lampman (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right. The resemblance is uncanny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I've never noticed that before, but you're right. I'm never going to be able to unsee that... --Jayron32 15:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Which one do you mean? The regular logo, or one of the several themed logos displayed only for a day? – b_jonas 08:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The regular logo, which is visible in the upper left corner of the link you provided, has had that "laughing e" for at least 10 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks guys

Thanks for the responses, guys! (OP here). Now I can tell you that I'm not really visually impaired; the reason I asked that way is that until I got your answer of "yeah, it kind of does" the question would have sounded like it's coming from a paranoid schizophrenic!! ("The e in the Google logo is laughing at me!") linky. Thanks for the nice work, guys! 188.156.224.145 (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

We were just humoring you. Actually, you are the only one who's seeing that. >:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the lower case of that font, several of the "curvy" letters, including 3 of the 5 distinct letters in "Google", appear to "lean to the left" a bit, resulting in that funny look to the "e". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

re: Gurdjieff - error or confusion on the Gurdjieff page?

Hello all. Firstly the reason I didn't put this in the Gurdjieff talk page was that I didn't think it was important enough, and I don't know enough. In the Gurdjieff page, half way through the section titled "Group Work", it says:

In addition, one should never violate the one basic rule in group-work which guarantees the harmonious development of the Work: the practice of external considering.[citation needed] Whenever group-work fails, the failure may be traced[by whom?] to a lack of external considering among its members.[30][verification needed]

I don't understand the phrase' external considering' as used here. GIG and Ouspensky's main idea here was do NOT identify, identification being one of the main causes of sleep. Also Ouspensky defines in his book The Psy.of.MPE 'Considering' to be 'Identification with people', which he says is bad and G says is bad. This should be re-worded, or am I missunderstanding the sentence?

Also, G and O both clearly said rule #1 is "Don't Lie', meaning 'Don't talk about what you do not know, or cannot know', and O says in PoMPE that breaking this rule is the number one reason a group will break up, the breaking of secrecy.

So is the page wrong, badly worded, or am I misunderstanding?

Thank you, David, blucat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.142.19.65 (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about George Gurdjieff, the article reads like it was written by someone who does not know English well, so that specific statement is hard to interpret as-is. If someone who knows English natively is also familiar with that historical figure, maybe they could review the article and see if they can fix it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Women regents co-reigned and male did not?

When I read about the smaller vassal states in France, the Netherlands and Greece during the middle ages, I noticed that female rulers reigned alone much less than male. There where two different peculiarities.

1.) In the case of a female heir to the throne, she often shared her inheritence with her sister rather than inheriting the undivided state as a male heir would have. Why was this? Was two women considered to equal one man?

2.) The second was that her husband was normally appointed her co-ruler. Why was this? Did it ever hapen that a wife was appointed her husbands co-ruler?

I hope someone could help me with both of my questions. They are general rather than pertaining to a specific state: I wonder if there where any officiall philosophy around this. Thanks in advance. --Aciram (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

France had Salic law which excluded queen-regnants (women ruling for themselves) from the throne. In traditional British common law, if there is a son, or more than one son, in a family, then the eldest son is the heir, but if there is no son, then usually all daughters are equal "co-heiresses". This co-heiress rule never applied to the throne of England/Scotland/Britain, but it did apply to placing some baronies "in abeyance"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Why where the daughters co-heiresses? Why wasn't simply the eldest daughter the heir? --Aciram (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know "why", but that's the way it was done. See partly Abeyance#Peerage_law. There's currently no article on co-heiress, but it seems that there could be... AnonMoos (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually cannot think of a time in France where there was ever a Queen Regnant, or where there were Duchesses/Countesses regnant in any of the various fiefdoms of France proper. The situation you describe where a husband in named a king when his wife inherits a throne is called becoming a king jure uxoris, lit. "by the right of his wife", but such a situation has never occured in France since women cannot inherit in the first place. There are some states on the periphery of France where queens could inherit, for example the Kingdom of Navarre had several queens regnant, such as Jeanne d'Albret. It was through her husband that the Bourbon kings of France and Spain descend. There have been very powerful queens of France who did not officially reign, but operated as a sort of Éminence grise. See Catherine de' Medici for an example of that. --Jayron32 02:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Anne of Brittany was duchess-regnant, as was her daughter, but Brittany wasn't part of France at the time...actually, the requirement that they find husbands, and the fact that their husbands happened to be kings of France, was what finally incorporated Brittany into France. I think there were some other duchesses-regnant before them, as well. Another example is crusader Jerusalem, where there were a few queens-regnant, and this was perfectly legal. However, the queen, or any other female heir, no matter how small the fief, was expected to find a husband. There is one case where the widowed queen was married off to another man while still pregnant with her first husband's child. I don't think any of those queens ruled by themselves. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Another powerful de facto ruler of France was Anne de Beaujeu, who acted as regent for her brother Charles VIII of France. She has been described as one of the most powerful women in the late 15th century. There were also very influential royal mistresses who exerted considerable political power in France such as Diane de Poitiers and Madame de Pompadour.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not use the right words, but there are many examples of women inheriting French fiefdoms; Eleonore of Aquitaine is one - she was ruling duchess of Aqutaine. Here are several examples of women rulers in the French County of Boulonge; Count of Boulogne. Perhaps I did not phrase it directly, but these were French language fiefdoms in present day France. My question was not if women could inherit the French throne. My question was why men could be their wives co-regents and not the other way around, and why tow sisters could share their inheritence of a throne and not two brothers. --Aciram (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Those aren't French fiefdoms. Aquitaine, at the time Eleanor inherited it wasn't a proper fief of France; its relationship to the French Crown was like that of Brittany; it was an independant duchy and not subject to France at all. It had earlier been a Frankish duchy, but very early on it had broken away from the Merovingian kings and had established itself as fully independent. Indeed, prior to the Hundred Years Wars, most of those duchies and counties were de facto independent of France, and some were de jure independent (see Franche Comte and Brittany); the French King had no power to enforce his laws on those states anymore than the Chinese Emperor did, they ran their own affairs and followed their own laws. So-called "salic law" only really made a difference when it came to enforcing the Valois claims to the French throne over the Plantagenet claims; there's little evidence it was ever considered seriously before then; you'll note that all of the female countesses regnant and duchesses regnant ruled prior to the 1450's, most many centuries before then. The process of developing France into a nation state is tied up in the Hundred Years Wars, and "Salic Law" is part of that; prior to the 15th century, it makes little sense to consider anything outside of the Crown lands of France as under direct influence of the King. --Jayron32 05:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I see. I called them French because they where French language states, that is all. But as you can see from my original question, France and whether women could inherit thrones in France was never the question I made here, so it is a shame that the replies are mainly about things I never asked for. France was just one of the areas in Europe i mentioned. I wished I had simply said "Mideavel Europe" now. If you look at the original questions I made, they where not about France, so I will repeat them in the hope that someone can answer them.

These where the questions I made:

1.) In the case of a female heir to the throne, she often shared her inheritence with her sister rather than inheriting the undivided state as a male heir would have. Why was this? Was two women considered to equal one man?

2.) The second was that her husband was normally appointed her co-ruler. Why was this? Did it ever hapen that a wife was appointed her husbands co-ruler?

Note: the questions above are not whethere women could inherit the royal throne of France. Are there anyone who culd answer theese questions? I would be gratefull. Thank you in advance. --Aciram (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Those questions were answered, but in the interest of re-answering them (since the answers got lost in the tangents), for the answer to question 1, see abeyance. For the answer to question 2, see jure uxoris. --Jayron32 13:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It was really not the case that "two women were considered to equal one man" in English Common Law (that actually applies to Islamic inheritance law) -- rather, no one daughter was favored over any other daughter for purposes of inheritance... AnonMoos (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The role of Empress Wan Rong of Manchuria

I wonder : did Wan Rong, empress of the japanese puppet state in Manchuria in 1934-1945, have any officiall tasks? What was the role designed for her by the japanese? Was she present at officiall ceremonies, did she perform representation, was she a known figure to the public? Was she visible in society, or was she rather isolated from society by the japanese? Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Weird children's book

Hi. Can anyone help me track down the title of a book I read when I was about 12... it was set in some kind of ancient society, but there were strange spheres, which I think were living creatures, that were kitted out with metal spikes, which would roll over (and kill) people for reasons that I can't remember. Is that sufficiently vague? Thanks --Dweller (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The old L. Frank Baum book Queen Zixi of Ix has a similar type of creature (the "Roly-Rogues"), but is less bloody than what you seem to be describing... AnonMoos (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, what I remember was dark and fairly scary and definitely gruesomely bloody. Thanks though. --Dweller (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

April 7

Proust Questionnaires

What are some of the most famous/notorious/acclaimed Proust Questionnaire responses? Questions need not be identical to those answered by Proust, but in that vein Skomorokh 00:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Oldest European novel

What is the oldest novel in the history of Europe, still continously published? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.82.235 (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean a work that's never been out-of-print? Ignoring this restriction, and allowing narrative poems, then The Iliad is probably the oldest European story. CS Miller (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If we really want to restrict ourselves to novel as a single work of known provenance to a specific author, the article and section Novel#Antecedents_around_the_world and following has some interesting threads to follow. Since there is no direct attestation that Homer was really one person, or even really existed, then (again depending on how you define novel) works such as the Aeneid or the later Decameron may qualify for the OP. --Jayron32 04:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I added a more useful (sub)title. StuRat (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There's another way, which I just did. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The point of making it a subtitle is so that a <CTRL>F page find (or manually scanning the TOC), for the original title, would still find their Q. StuRat (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you specifically asked for a European novel, we can rule out Story of Sinuhe]. If you go by the definition that a novel has to be in prose (which the epics of Homer wasn't), it would probably be Satyricon by Petronius from the 1st century AD. Sadly only parts of it is extant today. The genre of the novel developed in Hellenistic times through writers such as Petroniyus, Apuleius, Heliodorus, Longus and others (as per Thomas Häag, The novel in antiquity). Although the modern psychological novel first appeared in the 18th century, some, especially the Latin novels of Petronius and Apuleius does display some modern characteristics familiar to us, more so than the Greek novels which seems to follow a more basic formula. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Link to discussion the last time this came up. --Viennese Waltz 09:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The question in that previous discussion was "What was the first novel ever written ?" - and the answer, of course, depends on your definition of "novel". The OP's question here is somewhat narrower, but even more difficult to answer, because it also depends on how you define "Europe" and "continuously published". Is Beowulf a novel because it depicts an fictional narrative, even though it is not in prose ? Is it "continuously published" even though it only existed in manuscript form for hundreds of years ? Gandalf61 (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The link above points out the 12th century Hayy ibn Yaqdhan by a Moorish writer as one possiblity. We tend to still overlook Arabic contributions in the West. Rmhermen (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Popular English-translated Bible in Joseph Conrad's Lifetime

What translation of the Bible might Joseph Conrad have been reading in the late 19th and early 20th century? I know translations change things and can change things quite a bit, and I wanted to know if there was a universally accepted one at the time, similar to how the New American Bible is fairly popular today. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Reader who Writes (talk • contribs) 12:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Authorised Version (also known as the King James Bible) would be far and away the most likely for Conrad to have read. DuncanHill (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Douay–Rheims Bible was the standard Catholic Bible of the time while the Revised Version of the King James was issued by 1885 and quickly became popular. Rmhermen (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If he was reading in Polish, he would have had the Catholic Jakub Wujek Bible or the Protestant Danzig Bible. See Slavic translations of the Bible#Polish. Rmhermen (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Side-note: The New American Bible is a fairly popular American Catholic version of the Bible. But the New International Version is the most popular version while the King James is still required by certain very conservative groups. Rmhermen (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how "popular" the Revised Version really was; it was not free from controversy at the time (and more issues have turned up since then), and it conspicuously failed to replace the KJV in many uses... AnonMoos (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

As he was a writer I think Conrad would have preferred good prose, which the AV has in spades and none of the others have in any appreciable quantity. Does anyone know if a catalogue of Conrad's personal library exists? DuncanHill (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the Joseph Conrad Society, on their page scholarly resources recommend the AV and the Book of Common Prayer as being useful for tracing Conrad's allusions. DuncanHill (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Studying philosphy at an expensive private university

What kind of people study something like philosophy at an expensive private university? Are all there wealthy? Quest09 (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Aside from its potential inherent benefits, an undergraduate degree in philosophy is widely recognized as being a great way to get into law school. It doesn't necessarily prepare you for any particular trade right out of school, but very few things do, anymore (there are relatively few undergraduate degrees that get you relevant jobs on the strength of your major alone — it requires a bit more beyond that). You might as well ask who studies history, English, anthropology, or sociology. Note that just because one is at an expensive private university does not mean that one is paying a lot in tuition — even at places where the tuition is astounding (e.g. Harvard, Yale, whatever), most undergraduates, even ones from fairly wealthy families, do not pay full tuition. That being said, there probably are demographics that characterize philosophy majors as compared to, say, math majors. According to this page (truth status unknown), philosophy in the US has similar demographics as majors in economics, mathematics, and the natural sciences — it leans strongly towards white and male, which isn't terribly surprising, given its reputation for being a lot of naval navel gazing and its high priority on aggressive argumentation (which in my experience goes hard against the socialization of women and minorities in the United States, anyway). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know if you misspelled it on purpose, but naval gazing is certainly a curious expression. Do they watch ships pass by? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Working worker ant (talk • contribs) 16:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! Curse you, spell check! --Mr.98 (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Nautiloskepsis, perhaps? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Several of those "so-called" Ivy League schools did, about a decade ago, introduce very liberal financial aid packages, Princeton University comes to mind, such that students who are accepted do not have a financial barrier preventing them from going. Princeton_University#Admissions_and_financial_aid discusses this a bit; students who are accepted to Princeton get all of their financial aid in the form of grants, and as such Princeton, though it has a nominally high tuition, has students who graduate with very little debt load. Additionally, Cornell University has several colleges which are actually part of the State University of New York system (see Statutory college); students admitted under those programs pay instate tuition for SUNY, and not Cornell's standard tuition, however they attend the same classes and live in the same dormitories and so are otherwise indistinguishable in the student population. --Jayron32 16:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This awesome sortable table from the Wall Street Journal shows a bunch of salary stats sorted by the undergraduate bachelor's degree earned by, supposedly, 1.2 million US people in the survey. It doesn't count people with master's degrees or higher. A philosophy degree's starting median salary is apparently US$39,900, and the mid-career median salary is US$81,200. That mid-career number beats the mid-career numbers for political science, accounting, architecture, IT, business management, and nursing. (Though chemical engineering wins, both for the starting and mid-career median salary numbers.) This was a 2009 survey, apparently. An interesting feature of the Philosophy degree is that it (along with Mathematics, in a tie) has the highest percent change from starting median salary to mid-career median salary, meaning ... big big raises! Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr 98's answer is perhaps restricted to the United States. In many other countries there are a large (and increasing) number of "vocational" undergraduate degrees that prepare you for a job straight out of university. One of these is law. In the UK for example law can be a single undergraduate degree. In Australia, while law is (mostly) a second degree, the majority of students now commit themselves to it at the start of university by enrolling in a "double degree" where the law degree is packaged with a "first" undergraduate degree. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

First class mail

Is there a maximum weight for first class mail items in the UK? Cannot find anything specified on their website, but cannot believe it is infinite.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Maximum weight for any first class item is 20kg according to this page. Maimum weight for a first class letter is 100g; above that weight you have large letter and then packet. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup, you're quite right. A 20kg packet is possible. Thanks.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This should help. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

But that site says "No maximum weight limit". Oh well, I'm not likely to want to go over 20kg anyway.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

April 8

Spiritual lineage of civilizations

There's a weird idea that was once entertained by European historians. My memory of it is vague, but it is like this: there is an indefinable quality, a distinctive essence or spirit, that is transmitted from one great civilization to another as one falls and another rises, so that you can trace a continuous, genealogical "thread" of civilizations across the ages, from Egypt to Greece to Rome to Byzantium to the Holy Roman Empire to Spain to Britain (or France) to the United States, etc. Depending on where the historian was from, and according to his personal tastes, he would have a different idea about the exact details of this thread. I think the idea enjoyed popularity during the 1800's, and perhaps much earlier, and particularly in western Europe. I think it has a Wikipedia page, but I'm not sure. Does my description of the concept ring a bell with anyone? LANTZY^TALK 02:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if it's exactly what you're you're talking about, but Hegel seems to have belabored a lot of metaphysics to arrive at the conclusion that Biedermeier Prussia was the height of human civilization... -- AnonMoos (talk)

Zeitgeist maybe? --Jayron32 05:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There's also Carl Jung's idea of Collective unconscious. And Emile Durkheim's Collective consciousness. And Gottfried Leibnitz's Monads. All of these philosophical traditions have the same basic concept of core, or central "threads" as you call them running through societies... --Jayron32 05:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that theory has enjoyed much popularity. At least in the 19th century the reigning academical schools of thought in history in Western Europe was historicism and later positivism. None of which bears any resemblence to the theory the OP describes. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hegel, I reckon, and these kinds of ideas underlie a lot of what is said about "civilisation". Itsmejudith (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a continuation of the medieval idea of translatio imperii. I'm not sure whether nineteenth-century folk used some other term for the notion, but my guess is that the Latin term was still commonly used. Deor (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That's it! Thanks. LANTZY^TALK 12:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the most famous extension of the idea to America is George Berkeley's lines "Westward the course of empire takes its way; / The first four acts already past, / A fifth shall close the drama of the day; / Time’s noblest offspring is the last." Deor (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it started with the Atlantis myth, one version of which states that because they knew the end was nigh for that civilisation, the Elders of Atlantis sent one representative to each continent so that knowledge of Atlantis and its wisdom would remain after the civilisation's demise. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that idea existed before the publication in 1882 of Ignatius L. Donnelly 's Atlantis: the Antediluvian World. Deor (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no link between Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire as they are geographically remote.
Sleigh (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Au contraire. There are a lot of links between Byzantium and the HRE, not the least of which is that both have claims to be descendants of the Ancient Roman Empire (and Byzantium really was, without any noticible interregnum). There were also numerous diplomatic marriages between the two empires, such as the marriage of the daughter of Byzantine emperor Leo_VI_the_Wise to the Holy Roman Emperor Louis the Blind, or of Theophanu a neice/removed cousin of John I Tzimiskes and married to Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor. Byzantium and Western Europe had other important relationships as well; it was at the Behest of Constantinople that several of the Crusades were called; one of them even sacked the city and established the Latin Empire of Constantinople. --Jayron32 18:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, at the time that the Holy Roman Empire was established, the southern half of Italy was a province of the Byzantine Empire called the Catepanate of Italy. Some historians have asserted that the fall of Constantinople in 1453 was the spark that ignited The Renaissance, with scholars like Bessarion migrating to the west. Alansplodge (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

War between France and Italy?

There has been a lot of talk here in Italy as to a possible war breaking out between France and Italy over the Tunisian immigrants issue. Is this a real possibility between two European Union members and NATO allies?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The idea of "war" seems unrealistic - clearly there are tensions, but armed conflict over the issue seems extraordinarily unlikely - there are many other ways of resolving tensions. Given Berlusconi's appetites, maybe Mme Sarkozy could use her charms to win him over. Do you have any reliable sources suggesting it as a possibility? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree with all of the foregoing, but just in case anyone in Italy IS considering attacking France, it would be wise to look at a precedent within living memory; the Italian invasion of France in 1940. With France on the brink of total military collapse and having already asked for an armistice with Germany, the Italians attacked with 32 divisions (about 250,000 men?) but were held back without too much effort by the depleted French defenders. Alansplodge (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Last night I watched a debate on a RAI Uno current affairs programme involving several Italian politicians, and one of them mentioned war, but it was most likely a figure of speech as I don't think it would happen. I must say Sarkozy has a much stronger personality than Berlusconi.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It is inconceivable that this could lead to war, but perhaps not inconceivable that it could lead to the effective exclusion of Italy from the Schengen area if it is seen to be violating an explicit or implicit agreement among its members. Anti-immigrant sentiment exists among many members of the Schengen, and they could probably sway the group to agree to the reimposition of border controls between Italy and the rest of the Schengen area. Marco polo (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if France and Italy did get angry enough at each other to go to war (which they wouldn't), the rest of Europe would stop them. The harm to the rest of the continent (and the rest of the world, really) caused by the interdependance of all our economies would be so severe that the rest of Europe and NATO would send peacekeeping troops to enforce peace. --Tango (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it was a figure of speech, as it's hard to imagine a such a scenario actually taking place. I only asked to see if it was indeed possible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Medici lions at the Château de Saint-Cloud ‎

Medici lion

I'm researching the history of the Medici lion(s) in the garden of the Château de Saint-Cloud, such as year and sculptor. Anyone with knowledge or sources? Thanks, /Urbourbo (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

MacArthur's 'army air commander' in May 1942

Can anyone help me put a name andor a position title to a person mentioned in a source? The only information in the source is that he's "...the army air commander under General MacArthur..." and held this position around or after May 1942; the source mentions his response to an incident which ocurred during the Battle of the Coral Sea. Thanks in advance. -- saberwyn 08:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The commander of the Army Air Force at the time was Henry H. Arnold, but maybe there was a subordinate in charge at the Coral Sea. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the person the source identifies is a step down the food chain: someone responsible for the USAAF in the South West Pacific theatre of World War II and reporting to MacArthur, like Herbert F. Leary was responsible for the USN in the region. -- saberwyn 10:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Major General George Kenney took on the role from August 1942 - all we need to do is identify his predecessor. Alansplodge (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

MacArthur was in command of the South West Pacific Area. As that article says George Brett was the Deputy Coammander and Commander of Allied Air Forces there until August 4, 1942. I assume the incident was probably the bombing of a task force under the Australian John Gregory Crace. There's a mention of Brett's response to the incident in note 59 on the Battle of the Coral Sea article. --JGGardiner (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Brett's the man I want, and yes, that was the incident. Thanks muchly :) -- saberwyn 02:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Economics

Which factor will not cause a shift in the demand curve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.21.64.112 (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

UFO sightings. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That depends on the product. UFO sightings will tend to increase demand for Tin foil hats. --Jayron32 11:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention alcohol and certain medicines. --Dweller (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but increased alcohol consumption also increases the supply of UFO sightings, thus complicating matters. StuRat (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

See Demand (economics). You may also be interested to read User:Dweller/Dweller's Lungs Economics theory, which postulates some interesting demand-related issues. --Dweller (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Some factors that will increase demand for a given item:

1) The item becoming "fashionable". A celebrity using the item might have this effect, for example.

2) The item being improved.

3) The item being made less expensive.

4) Other things which use/require the item increasing in prevalence. For example, if computer sales go up, so will computer mouse sales.

5) The item now being mandated by law, such as health insurance in the US.

6) Other similar items being unavailable. For example, if a disease wiped out lemon crops, but left limes alone, lime demand would likely rise.

7) The item being found to be "good for you". For example, healthy foods.

8) A competing brand is no longer made.

9) Item becomes standardized. For example, people who were reluctant to buy cassette audio tape when 8-track tape was competing may have done so only after cassettes won the format war.

Many of these factors also have opposites, which cause demand to fall:

1) Item going out of fashion.

2) Item is made in a shoddier manner than before, like US cars in the 1970's.

3) Price goes up more than inflation.

4) Other things which use/require the item decline in prevalence.

5) The item is no longer mandated by law.

6) A glut of similar products. Many new varieties of citrus fruit can decrease demand for any one type, for example.

7) The item is found to be unhealthy. For example, items containing "trans fats". In this case, disclosure of previously hidden trans fat info on the labels can also decrease demand.

8) More competing brands. For example, entry of foreign cars into the market can reduce demand for domestic cars.

9) Item becomes non-standardized, as new formats enter the market.

In addition, demand can also fall if the product becomes obsolete. For example, demand for horse-drawn carriages. StuRat (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Why can't Judeo-Islamic ritual animal slaughter use stunning?

Comparison of Islamic and Jewish dietary laws mentions they can't, but lacks specifics as to why. I don't think the prohibition is in the Tanakh, Quran or hadith and suspect it comes from some much later rulings by rabbis and imams. It's a topical question given http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110408/ap_on_re_eu/eu_netherlands_ritual_slaughter_ban Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

On your first point, no, it's a notable omission. As far as Jewish slaughter goes, our article is at Shechita, and it doesn't deal with it either. AFAIK, it's because stunning is deemed to hurt, which immediately renders the animal not kosher. I'm on surer ground with your other question - and our article answers it well. I quote: "Though referenced in the Torah, (Deut. 12:21) none of the basic practices of shechita are described in this place, or anywhere else in Torah (Five books of Moses). Instead, they have been handed down in Judaism's traditional Oral Torah, and codified in halakha in various sources, most notably the Shulchan Aruch." So, if you believe in torah min hashamayim, it's from God. If you don't, well, some strands of Judaism that don't believe in torah min hashamayim have significantly relaxed or removed these laws altogether. --Dweller (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Shechita says: "Before slaughtering, the animal must be healthy, uninjured and viable. The animal cannot be stunned by electronarcosis, captive-bolt shot to the brain, or gas, as is common practice in modern animal slaughter, for this would inflict such injuries to the animal rendering the shechita invalid." Gandalf61 (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This is background information and doesn't directly address the "why", but Temple Grandin's website includes this page on "Recommended Ritual Slaughter Practices". It is replete with references. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

copyright of mathematical proofs

I know that Ideas can't be copyrighted, only expressions of it can. But I want to know how this principle is applied to math proofs.

If I take a math proof from a copyrighted paper and change the symbols used so that the text is different but the meaning remains the same and reprint it without permission, does it violate copyright? Or does it count as a diffrent 'expression' of the idea in the paper? Diwakark86 (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The idea-expression divide is super problematic from a legal point of view and is quite hard to resolve in many cases. (If you re-write a Harry Potter novel so that the expression is entirely different but the basic plot and characters are identical, you will get sued for infringement, no doubt.)

In theory, equations should not be copyrightable at all. They are facts of nature and all that — pure ideas if there ever were any. But a very clever lawyer could come up with very compelling arguments about the "creativity" that exists in creating mathematical proofs and probably get some traction with that. I don't know if that has ever occurred.

It goes without saying that plagiarizing a math paper might have other consequences other than copyright issues. And I am assuming you are not asking for concrete legal advice on this... --Mr.98 (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, you will sometimes hear the claim "mathematical theorems / findings cannot be patented", which is a bit of a mis-representation. Though you cannot patent a theorem per se, many individuals, companies, and universities patent the application of a theorem, which in some cases is tantamount to patenting the theorem (think e.g. of the theorems behind signal processing, which can generate serious profit.) Competing companies would be free to use the content of the theorem (e.g. in publishing related research), but restricted from using the result to make a cell phone, for instance (or whatever application is indicated in the patent). SemanticMantis (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, mathematical proofs of any note will have been published a journal of some sort; the journal holds reprint rights, and attribution goes to the author. The author holds copyright on unpublished proofs, obviously. You can generally change the symbology in ways that do not alter the meaning of the proof and use it in ways consistent with the policies of the journal. Contact the journal the proof was published in (or contact the author directly) to see what you are and are not allowed to do with the material. --Ludwigs2 17:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If you ask the journal whether your use case requires permission or payment, they will probably tell you yes, since they have nothing to lose by telling you that. If you want to learn about your actual legal rights, you should consult a less biased source. -- BenRG (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

By that reasoning, Wikipedia would never tell you that you can use the text on it somewhere else, since they have "nothing to lose" by telling you that. 188.156.178.64 (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The answer is yes, the modified work is a derivative of the original and therefore subject to copyright. If the proof is short enough and you explicitly attribute the source, you may be able to use it under fair use provisions, but otherwise it would be a copyright violation. Looie496 (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Looie, unless you can quote legal code or precedent to support that, I think Mr.98's answer is better. -- BenRG (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Published proofs are routinely included in later published works by other authors, not with text copied verbatim, but with ideas appearing exactly as in the original work (referenced of course). This is often very helpful in preparing the reader for a generalization or strengthening of the original proof. I have never heard of this practice being restricted by the original author or publisher claiming copyright. This would be such an attack on ordinary academic practice that I doubt it would be tolerated by the mathematical community. Any author or publisher who tried this would get laughed out of town. Staecker (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

white house

Is white house a haunted house? --Ghoulbuster (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

A white house is just a house painted white or limewashed or built from white stone, and most of them are not haunted. The White House is haunted only by the President of the United States as far as I know, but I haven't been there to check. There are other possible White Houses. Dbfirs 16:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There are hundreds of stories of White House ghosts -- we even have an article about one of them, Lincoln's Ghost. Looie496 (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I found this page which is relevant. Alansplodge (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica BLP's

I've heard that about 15% of Wikipedia articles are BLP's. Does anyone know the percentage for Encyclopaedia Britannica? Thanks. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Is that Biographies of Living People, or some other BLP ? StuRat (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, biographies of living people, I'm wondering if EB's percentage is anything like ours. I know how many the Dictionary of American Biography had (i.e. none), though I'm not sure about its successor, the American National Biography encyclopedia. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The American National Biography, like the Dictionary of American Biography, only has entries on dead people. —Kevin Myers 04:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In my experience it is the usual practice that National Biographies only include dead people, while encyclopedias also includes living people. Why it is so I am not sure, but it seems to have been the situation at least as early as the second half of the 1800s. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, dead people can't do anything that will make their articles obsolete, which would be a problem in a print encyclopedia. Read the 1911 EB's article on Georges Clemenceau, for example. (At one point, Wikipedia also had a copy of 1911 EB's article on the then-current sultan of Morocco, which talked about him as if he was still alive...) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, new information can come to light, especially in cases where there's a myth surrounding the person. For example, Christopher Columbus isn't portrayed as the hero he once was. StuRat (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who was paying close attention to the details always knew that Columbus' career was not uniformly glorious -- to start with, he was an ignominious failure as a settlement-founder or governor on land... AnonMoos (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That's my point, I bet that most biographies written 100 years ago would have represented him in heroic terms, while recent bios would not. StuRat (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Failure to accept the budget

If there is no agreement by midnight between Obama and Congress on the 2011 budget, and "the government" does not get paid, who, in this instance, is included in "the government"? Specifically, does the military get paid, and do Obama and Congress members get paid? I would really appreciate a cite for any answer. Bielle (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The only cite I have is the TV news, but apparently the soldiers don't get paid while the President and Congress do. (If it was the other way around, there would never be a shutdown, would there ?) Sounds a lot like when a company is facing bankruptcy, so slashes jobs and pay, except for executives who then get huge bonuses. StuRat (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Congress and the President still receive pay when there is a government shutdown. However, there is currently in Congress Bill S.388, generally called the "No Budget, No Pay" Bill, that would stop both Congress and the President from receiving pay during a government shutdown.

There are some who consider such a bill unconstitutional. Namely, Article Two of the United States Constitution, Clause Seven, states "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected..." This is commonly seen to serve two purposes; firstly, that the President can't give himself a raise, and secondly, that Congress can't reward/punish the president via his compensation. Therefore, to some, the cessation of the Presidents' pay via this bill would violate this clause.

The military, however, may not get paid (though soldiers' are expected to continue their duty). During a government shutdown, only "essential" personnel are paid - this is determined (I believe) under the guidance of the Office of Management and Budget. There is also a new Bill on this side, S.724: "Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011", which, if passed, would continue to pay military personnel despite a government shutdown.

Hope that helps to clear things up. ^Avic_ennasis @ 04:27, 5 Nisan 5771 / 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I remember military pay being delayed in 1981? Payday was the 15th and end of the month. They moved it to 1 October so it would come from the next years budget. They did it again the next year, then just moved payday to the first of the month. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 05:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the responses. Bielle (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

April 9

First abolitionist newspaper in the United States? (needs JSTOR lookup)

What was the first abolitionist newspaper in the United States? Some say it was the The Emancipator from Tennessee (this is what Wikipedia currently says). Others say it was The Philantropist from Ohio. The answer is probably in this paper, but unfortunately, I don't have JSTOR access any more. Kaldari (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You'll want to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange, which is designed for exactly this kind of problem. --Jayron32 05:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Category:Wikipedians who have access to JSTOR. From a quick scan (I'm on my way out), the article mentions the Philanthropist first. sonia♫ 05:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. Sorry for posting to the wrong venue. Kaldari (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, lots of public libraries offer JSTOR access. You might try your local one, or (if you're in the US) one in a big city in your state. I think US libraries will generally issue free library cards to any resident of the state that the library is in. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

As Sonia says, thr JSTOR article says it was the Philanthropist, in 1817. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: new DNC Chairwoman

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-FL20 is the designate, with an election by the 20th; presuming she's elected and assumes the post, is she required to resign her House seat, or is she allowed to hold both? Dru of Id (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

None of several news articles mentioned it, and I assume it would be something worth mentioning. I can't think of a reason why she wouldn't be allowed to hold both offices. Chris Dodd was General Chairperson for the Democratic National Committee from 1995 – 1997, while still holding the office of a Senator from Connecticut. ^Avic_ennasis @ 09:06, 5 Nisan 5771 / 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't looked that far back at the Chairs; I just saw that the more recent ones were not in Congress during their (edit) tenure; Thanks! Dru of Id (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Are Republicans hypocrites?

Do republicans qualify as hypocrites by disapproving of abortion on the grounds of being pro-life while at the same time disapproving of funds for adoption of to support parents unable to support a child themselves? --DeeperQA (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No. A child that isn't adopted won't be "killed". ^Avic_ennasis @ 09:09, 5 Nisan 5771 / 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"Pro-life" was originally called "Right to life", which really was "the right to be born". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that the right word is really "hypocrisy", but it's been a common observation/allegation since the Reagan administration that some pro-life advocates seem to be a lot more concerned about the fetal period than what happens after a baby is actually born, and that their "pro-life" principles do not seem to extend to such areas as health care, death-penalty, militarism, gun control, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It's true that this "hypocrisy" has been pointed out for decades, which is why their original slogan "right to life", as in "right to be born alive", was the more correct term. There is not necessarily any ambiguity in their support of the death penalty (though not all right-to-lifers do support it), the argument being that people choose to commit capital crimes and choose to make war on us, but they do not choose to be conceived. Note that I don't necessarily agree with that philosophy, but that's the conservative or libertarian argument on the matter. They have either not done a good job of explaining that distinction, or the other side is not paying attention, or maybe both. "Pro-choice" is also "hypocritical", because as noted, the embryo or fetus has no choice in the matter. "Pro-abortion-rights" would be the better term, but both sides of the argument have come up with terms that are more political than factually accurate. That covers all the points you raise except for health care, and that's where the real hypocrisy and obfuscation come from. The arguments about "quotas" is a red herring, as there already is a "quota", in the sense that there are not infinite resources to cover everyone properly, yet people don't typically "choose" to become ill, either. What it's really about is capitalism vs. socialism, i.e. about the government forcing the wealthy to support the not-wealthy. That already occurs to some extent, as hospital emergency rooms can't turn away gunshot victims just because they have no insurance. Higher premiums, for those who can pay for health insurance, are in some sense "voluntary", whereas taxation to cover health care would be compulsary. That's probably the core issue, what Tom Lehrer called, "What we most sincerely and deeply believe in... money." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It does lead to real problems for society, if you do everything US Republicans want:

1) Restrict birth control availability and education, thus ensuring more teenage pregnancies.

2) Ban abortion, thus ensuring more unwanted babies.

3) Cut all funds to care for and educate unwanted babies and children, thus ensuring that they grow up neglected.

On the plus side, Republicans are usually willing to pay for more prisons and execution chambers, where the results of their social experiments are likely to end up. StuRat (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

As you imply, attempts at social engineering often have unintended consequences. Despite the introduction of sex education in schools a couple of generations ago, despite the much more open availability of contraceptives, and despite the availability of abortion, the teen pregnancy rate is much higher now, particularly among those who can least afford it. As more than one woman has said to me, the reason many girls don't use these available preventatives is that they don't care, and neither liberals nor conservatives have figured out a way to socially engineer against that attitude. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"They don't care" is not a very convincing explanation. Research (in the UK is the stuff I know about, but likely also to apply in the US) shows 1) that young women often want to use condoms but their partners refuse 2) that there is a culture among young men of refusing to use condoms and that reflects both lack of sexual confidence and over-confidence, and that 3) some young women actively want to become mothers because that gives them a social status they aren't going to get through education. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It might be noted here that there are some Republicans for Choice out there, and not all republicans want to completely cut off all funds to the poor either. I highly doubt Olympia Snowe, for example, would agree with any of your three points there. The most extreme wing of the party tends to get the most media coverage, but don't forget that there are centrists in both parties. Also, I haven't heard of any republicans trying to ban birth control, but I live in the North East and maybe that is a more Southern thing? Qrsdogg (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say banning birth control, but rather restricting it's availability, such as requiring parent's consent (which should scare off many teens, resulting in more teen pregnancy) and eliminating free (taxpayer funded) birth control (which would mean more unwanted babies born to poor women). StuRat (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

For sure. That's one reason why Giuliani was never given much of a chance by the party. The extremists in both parties tend to drive the agenda. Back to the issue of "hypocrisy", though, it's somewhat of an unfair charge - because each side has what they consider to be logical and consistent reasons for their views. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In the American political system, politicians of all sorts are required and expected to be hypocrites to a certain degree. This is because the system has evolved so that positions of political power are achieved through the manipulation of public opinion. Politicians must first define a platform which engages public support (meaning that they choose issues which are emotionally charged and then frame them in morally unambiguous ways), and once elected they must follow through on the issues at least marginally to maintain the impression that they are committed to them. Issues relating to children are always good candidates for emotional reasoning, and campaigns discourage the kind of 1+1=? reasoning that shows contradictions between separate talking points.

Republicans are more prone to this than Democrats, which may be a reflection of the fact that the Republican base is not at all unified. Republicans have built their base out of a number of unrelated groups: big-money interests, farm-county conservatives, religious reactionaries, small business owners, libertarianoids, paramilitary statists... It's no wonder their candidates sometimes look crazy, trying to appeal to all those divergent interests simultaneously. --Ludwigs2 20:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, because in various parts of Europe the equivalent constituencies have been appealed to by the Left rather than the Right. Far-left groupings of small farmers in both France and Italy, leftist approaches to small business people in those countries and others, left libertarians and anarchists taking up the social freedom and anti-statist agendas, and various varieties of Christian socialism popular in both Catholic-tradition and Protestant-tradition countries. Actually, Europeans tend to think of American Democrats as instrumental in the way they seem to try and capture different constituencies. ("The Jewish vote seems to be OK, let's see about the Chinese vote next, and perhaps we need to pay some attention to the Hispanics...") Itsmejudith (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the way I see it, in the US the Democratic party found its definition in the social rights movements that dominated here from the 60s to the mid-80's - their constituency is unified by a kind of liberal, anti-violent, compassionate, pro-underdog motif (doesn't matter whether the underdog is migrant farm workers, unionized laborers, minority groups, spotted owls, oppressed foreign nationals, un-liberated women...). The Republicans have spent the last 20-30 years gathering up the the groups that feel slighted by that motif: farmers who object to controls on migrant labor, corporations who don't like unionized labor, strong Christians who object to the secularization that comes with multiculturalism, old-school statists who dislike non-aggressive foreign policy and protected domestic rights, conservative whites who are leery of racial integration, ideological conservatives who dislike taxation and government intervention... it's much harder to draw all that under one easy rubric. Of course, in europe it will be different because there will be different defining elements for the parties - for instance, no one in Germany wants to associate with old-school statists, France's more socialist perspective will create different alliances, and the whole new EU thing puts a federalist spin on everything there. European politics really isn't my thing, though. --Ludwigs2 22:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I have trouble believing that this problem is by any means limited to either Americans or Republicans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. It seems to me Ludwigs has accurately described the majority of politicians in all Western world style democracies. That is simply the premises of modern day politics in democratic societies, and the Republicans are no better or worse in that respect than the rest. It mainly comes down to whether you agree with their particular politics or not, and thus how much you are willing to ignore their particular but inevitable hypocrisies that being a politician in such a system creates. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. I know much more about US politics than about politics anywhere else, and I like to keep a quiet little dream that I can someday pack my bags and move to some democracy where political figures aren't largely raving lunatics. So far I've excluded Italy, India, Greece, most of the balkan states, The Netherlands, and Russia. Ireland, Sweden, France, and Spain are still in the running, so don't tell me anything bad about them. --Ludwigs2 22:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered Sealand? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ludwigs2. Wow! I think we have common political ground! (Nice to agree on something!) My god you describe things well. How about moving to Denmark? I have lived there for 24 years. It's a paradise for liberal, Democratic, humanitarian socialists, and the Danes are the happiest people in the world.

In modern social democratic societies in many Western European countries, as well as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, the populace voluntarily adopts certain values and ideas about human rights. They say:

• "We refuse to accept poverty, illness and ignorance as normal or acceptable, therefore we choose less income inequality so we can pay higher taxes into a national fund where there is no profit motive, and it gets paid back to the citizenry to ensure that our concept of human rights is respected. We believe that healthcare and education are human rights, therefore we choose to build a society where it is freely available to all. Our politicians are entrusted with a responsibility to administer those funds properly, and if they deviate from our humanitarian socialist values, we will use our democratic rights to replace them."

And it works! Denmark has the lowest level of income inequality in the world and they are the happiest people in the world: Few have too much, and fewer have too little. They are secure in many ways; they have decent health care and see no medical bills; they are very well-educated, and get paid to go to school all the way through university; their home economy is no barrier to becoming a physician, lawyer, architect, etc.; women have equal rights and extended pregnancy/child rearing rights and leave time, and their husbands/partners can share it; there is little crime; children are raised without fear of oppression by their parents, without censorship, with early self-responsibility, and they develop into independently thinking and mature adults who function very well in society; the military budget is small; the country gives a higher percentage of its GNP in international aide than the USA; even the few who are homeless and losers in society are kept from real suffering. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to enter this conversation as it's not the kind of thing best suited for the Reference Desk. But I can't help noting what Barney Frank said about this issue: that conservatives think "life begins at conception and ends at birth." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

transgendered novels

Can you recommend anyone non-explicit novels that have a transgendered character as a main character? Thanks!

You asked this at the Miscellaneous Desk a little earlier today. Please do not post the same question on more than one desk. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Women attending funerals

I have the impression, that it was not considered proper for women to attend funerals in early modern Europe. The men placed the coffin in the grave in all-male company and the women did not follow them to the cemetary. This seem to have changed in the 1850 or thereabout. Is this correct? Why was it like that? And why did it change? Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It is still the case in some funerals, although I have been unable to find definitive references for this. I'm thinking of some extreme Presbyterian sect, or traditionalists in the Scottish Isles. This page gives the old Scottish funeral procedure with reference to this practice. My reason for thinking it is still current is the fact that I have seen it within the last few months on the television in the UK. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you are talking about the burial. Women would still have attended the wake, prior to the burial. StuRat (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I googled [women attending burials] and there were a fair number of entries, many of them about Islam, but it seemed to be connected to the concern that women would be too emotional. This general concern is also mentioned somewhere in the Funeral article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Not always. Some Jewish groups bar women from funerals for other reasons. One pervasive belief is that the evil spirits that supposedly exist at graveyards could harm a fetus; another is that women are simply unclean and would pollute the graveyard. Some groups simply point to the ruling of a rabbi, who may not have given a reason for his decision. (But the vast majority of Jewish groups allow women at funerals.) In Islam, the reason for the ban seems to be not just that women cried loudly, but that families would hire women to cry loudly - it became a sort of competition. In Hinduism, two of the most common reasons given are the prevention of sati and the tendency of women to cry, but women were also expected to ritually clean the deceased's home during the cremation. Most other religions and non-theistic cultures allow women to attend funerals, and in some cultures women are traditionally in charge of funerals. --NellieBly (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

when did oral tellers of the Greek Iliad and Odyssey die out?

I understand that these texts were not passed on in written form, but by people who would memorize them. When did the last of these people probably live? (I assume we do not have a direct lineage to modern day, so that if anyone still does that, they can only trace it back to a book, not the oral tradition: is this assumption correct?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.188.226 (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the precise knowledge of oral traditions tend to die out with the individuals that lives by them, we don't really know. Generally speaking the oral tradition of storytelling has survived on up until quite recently, though most likely not in a direct line from the Hellenic storytellers. It is only a guess, but the storytellers directly familiar with the original Homeric epics probably did become somewhat superflous with the spread of the written narratives in the Hellenistic world especially from the 3rd century BC and onwards. The general oral tradition of storytelling started to become outdated in the Western world when the reading revolution of the 18th century kicked in, and more so during the following centuries, especially combined with the addition of new media of the radio, cinema, TV and lastly the internet. The oral tradition still survives to some extent, but it is largely a fringe phenomena, and generally is a revival that has no direct connection to the oral tradition of the past. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Just as an aside, regarding oral history, there are some societies where oral history taking was preserved for a very long time, even alongside writing; and in some cases, while their role is diminished in a modern society, hard work has preserved the tradition in an essentially unbroken line. The Griot or "Djeli" of West Africa represent such a tradition. --Jayron32 04:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Greeks (and Romans) may not have been as literate as us, but the small class of people who were literate weren't much different from us. The Homeric epics were first written down in the 6th century BC in Athens, under Pisistratus, and the 6th century is pretty early, considering that what we think of as ancient Greece didn't start until the 5th century. The oral epics seem to date from only a couple of hundred years earlier, the 9th or 8th century BC, but that just means the texts are based on the stories of the 8th century. The actual events were supposed to have taken place another several hundred years before that, so if by some chance they had been standardized in writing in the 8th century, or not until the third century, maybe the oral tradition would have been different and we would now have different texts. It's sort of like what we have with fairy tales, or the King Arthur stories. I hope that makes sense...what I mean is, not to discount the important or oral history, but the Greeks made a big deal about writing things down very early on. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC

)

"We know that officials in sixth-century BC Athens used written copies of Homer's epics to ensure that performers did not diverge from the authorized text" notes Herbert Jordan in his recent (2008) notes to The Iliad. This recension, traditionally authorized by Pisistratus, is known as the Ilias Atheniensium: google that phrase. George Melville Bolling spent a career trying (fruitlessly?) to identify the pre-Alexandrian text.--Wetman (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

April 10

What am I?

If my position on God is that I will find out when I die and until then I dont really care, what does that make me? A hellbound reprobate is, definately, not the answer I am looking for in case any of you are wondering ;) --Thanks, Hadseys 00:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

An apathetic agnostic. Looie496 (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

See Apatheism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The answer to this depends on what you mean by "don't really care". The issue here is the perceived relationship between the way one lives one's life and what happens after death; not caring what the after-death state-of-existence is can lead to any number of philosophical approaches. Good-natured hedonists, hard-core existentialists, and self-abnegating Buddhist monks all start from the presumption that after-death existence is both unknowable and not a matter for speculation, but beyond that they don't have a lot in common. --Ludwigs2 06:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Religion

Another question please. If religion as a concept had never been developed by mankind, i.e. we were totally ignorant of scripture and religious tales and belief in a deity, would religion still occur to us as a natural thought process? I don't think it would seeing as it isnt a phemonena that occurs in any other part of the animal kingdom but it would be interesting to hear differing perspectives --Thanks, Hadseys 00:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Those items you describe were a product of the thinking that led to religion being developed. So since it already happened that way, the answer has to be, "Yes." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• But the concept of religion was developed when governments couldn't control their unruly populations so they preyed on their fear of death. Religion to me always seems to have been used as a political weapon which is why it says, if your good and follow the commandments, which incidentally happen to what the majority of governments didnt want their population doing, you'll go to heaven but if you dont you'll go to hell.

That's a common hard-atheist assumption but I've never seen any proof of it. In fact, the evidence I have seen is that religion predates organized government by hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of years. The Neanderthals had religion. Just because governments use religion to control subjects doesn't mean they created it: they also use testosterone to control subjects, and they sure didn't create that either. --NellieBly (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I see this as at least partly looking at the concept of "the god(s) of the gaps". One role religion played historically was to explain things not otherwise explainable in mankind's early days. Now that we have scientific explanations for many of these things, the OP's question makes a lot of sense. HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the OP has some confusion, and that your comments make more sense. I would think there are some wikipedia articles that would explain things in depth. Starting with Religion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Humans seem to generate what we might call unorganized or weakly organized religions somewhat spontaneously. By default, human brains are hard-wired to make meaning out of the world. "Simple" religions are explanations of weather patterns, food patterns, etc. I don't think it makes much sense to say that governments invented religion to control their populace — it's a bit more organic than that. Many governments use religious belief to cement their power, but they rarely invent the religious belief outright, and the ability of governments to forcibly alter (or stamp out) religious beliefs has been quite limited. Some governments have created religions from nothing (e.g. the cult of personality in North Korea), but it doesn't look to me a whole lot like "regular" human religions, even those with strong state elements (like, say, Catholicism).--Mr.98 (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Well-stated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll add that it's natural for people to try to exercise control over their environments - we're socially organized tool users, after all - and primitive religion is often just about that: trying to create a social relationship with someone who is powerful enough to influence environmental factors (such as weather, game animals, disease, victory over rivals, etc.) that man can't control on his own. Offer up a pure white ram in a pleasing ceremony, and add in some prayers for good crops and healthy herds; who wouldn't be moved by that? Religion has grown up a bit, of course, and now generally reaches for idealistic abstractions like peace and universal love, but apply the right kind of pressure and most people will will revert back to that kind of divine wheedling. Nothing quite like an epidemic, a terrorist attack, a sinking ship or malfunctioning aircraft or what have you to put people in a "Hey there God, remember me?" frame of mind. --Ludwigs2 05:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." Alansplodge (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Jewish pronunciation of YHWH

I've noticed that there are two principal ways that the tetragrammation is romanized for pronunciation by non-Hebrew readers, namely, Yahweh and Yehova. Which is more commonly used by Jewish persons in the United States? Would a Jewish person who prefers one also consider the other correct? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

As the article Tetragrammaton explains, Jews never pronounce the word. When reading the word, they replace it with "Adonai," meaning "My Lord," or with other words depending on the context. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm pretty sure that, depending on orthodoxy, a Jewish person wouldn't speak the tetragrammaton. If they were to pronounce it, they would probably use whatever language they spoke natively to pronounce it; i.e. in Modern American English "Yahweh" would likely suffice. However, according to Tetragrammaton#Pronunciation, "Observant Jews write down but do not pronounce the Tetragrammaton, because it is considered too sacred to be used for common activities." The same article and section also states earlier "The authentic, historically correct pronunciation is not known" In other words a) No one knows how the original authors of the bible intended YHWH to be pronounced b) "Observent" jews don't pronounce it at all and c) Less observant jews would just pronounce it how it is pronounced in their native language. If you really wanted to be specific, you could pronounce it as the phrase "I am" is pronounced in Hebrew, as YHWH is supposed to literally mean "I am". --Jayron32 04:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

art reproduction

What does the "smoldering torch" in the margin of an engraving signify? What is the history behind the use of a "smoldering torch" to code a reproduction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe1128 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. When your art history instructor assigned you the reading in the textbook and/or covered this in lecture, what did they say? When you get these questions as a homework assignment, these are "are you paying attention" questions. You really shouldn't have to ask anyone for help, if, of course, you were paying attention. You may want to read {{DYOH}} as well. It will be enlightening. --Jayron32 04:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this topic, but will point out that the 'passing the torch' metaphor for extending knowledge across generations is very old (goes at least back to the story of Prometheus), and it would not at all surprise me to see it used symbolically by someone reproducing an older engraving for newer audiences. However, quoting me on this without double-checking in the reading is risky - if I'm wrong nothing happens to me, but you get an F. Aint life grand? --Ludwigs2 05:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Fictional city starting with Q?

I'm trying to come up with an example of a fictional city for every letter in the alphabet - more in the vein of fantastic/sci-fi/creative cities rather than just generic American Anytown cities - and I've got one for everything but Q. (X is Xanadu.) Can anybody think of one? It can be from anything - novels, movies, TV shows, cartoons, comics - as long as it's fictional. Ideally I'm looking for images and illustrations too. I've ruled out the Discworld's Quirm for that reason, and Family Guy's Quahog because it's an Anytown. 123.243.54.85 (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I've not read it, but have you checked The Discworld Mapp for images of Quirm? And why could you not use Quahog? There's lots of good images availible for areas of town; its not much different than Springfield, or South Park, in that way, and unlike Springfield it has a real location (Rhode Island). --Jayron32 06:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, Discworld has TV series and films set in it. I've not seen Soul Music (TV series), but the novel it is named after has action in Quirm, IIRC. --Jayron32 06:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

How about Quivira? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, have you tried looking in Category:Fictional populated places? --Jayron32 06:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

or Category:Fictional_countries_in_other_worlds. I'd lean towards shadowy realm of Quarmall in the old Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser stories. I think those probably were illustrated (they were mostly pulp serials, which were usually heavy on color). --Ludwigs2 06:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies so far, but I should clarify that I'm looking for fictional cities only, not countries or regions. "Fictional populated places" was a good subcategory I hadn't seen yet (I'd only seen "fictional city-states") but, alas, no entries under Q. The reason I am reluctant to use Quahog is because (like Springfield and South Park) it's fictional but not fantastic, if you get what I mean; it will look very dull sandwiched between City of Thieves (gamebook) and Rapture. Quirm was unfortunately created solely to fill the Discworld's role of a dull and boring place, so that's a last resort too - images from the animated series are very difficult to find and the only other one I can dig up is of the floral clock. 123.243.54.85 (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)