Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

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.

July 12

Being "sponsored"?

Recently, I was rummaging through my family archives and discovered some portraits, of my great-great-great grandmother (and her sister, they were twins) as children. A letter included with the portraits told how they were among the first of my family to immigrate to America, and that they had been "sponsored" by their uncle. What does "sponsored" mean in this context? Any articles about this? They came from main-land Italy if it makes a difference. Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 03:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It typically means that somebody already here vouched for them with immigration, giving them priority over those who wanted to immigrate with nobody to vouch for them. It may also mean he let them live with him, got them jobs, etc., to get them started. StuRat (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can read a bit about how this works today at "Permanent residence (United States)#Application process for family-sponsored visas". Admittedly, this has changed somewhat since the days of your great-great-great grandmother's youth. Gabbe (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the Immigration Act of 1917 and the Emergency Quota Act of 1921, immigration of "free white persons" had never been restricted during the history of the United States (except for those who were criminal or diseased), so formal family sponsorship was unnecessary. The system of formal family "sponsorship" of immigrants dates back to the Immigration Act of 1924, which created preferences for the spouses or children of U.S. citizens. Family sponsorship of more distant relatives wasn't possible until the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Between the passage of the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and 1952, immigration was regulated under a strict quota system, with no provision for family sponsorship except for spouses and offspring. If the questioner's great-great-grandmother immigrated as a child, then I'm guessing this happened before 1952 and very likely before 1924, in which case her uncle's sponsorship would have been a personal offer to help with housing and other kinds of support until the child or her parents were able to support themselves, rather than a formal legal relationship needed for immigration. Marco polo (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't "sponsorship" constitute a guarantee by the sponsor that the immigrant would not become a burden (i.e, go on welfare or need institutionalization or be a pauper)?

You may have a point there. I wasn't focusing on the fact that this person's ancestor arrived as a child. According to the Immigration Act of 1882, the authorities could exclude would-be immigrants "likely to become public charges". That category would obviously apply to unaccompanied children. In that case, I could imagine that an uncle could identify himself as a sponsor guaranteeing that they would not become public charges if they weren't accompanied by their parents. Remember though, that at the time there was no such thing as welfare, just poorhouses. Marco polo (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But beggars in the streets are also a "burden". 02:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If your distant relative "sponsored" you, he had an incentive to make sure you became a productive member of society, so that it did not cost him for your support. "Will you please sponsor me, Great Uncle Stash?" "(Sigh), Sure little Mehetibel, I would be PROUD to sponsor you!" (while calculating the possible cost of the act). Edison (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

date discrepancy between two articles concerning Glossolalia

I have read two Wikipedia articles that do not appear connected except for a hyperlink "Glossolalia" in the Cane Ridge article.

[1] and [2].

I was particularly interested in the date of the advent of this "phenomenon" in America. The Cane Ridge article is the first I've read of this pre-dating the Azusa Street Revival of 1906 in Los Angeles.

The glossolalia article is much longer. I assumed it was correspondingly more complete, yet it omits any reference to the Cane Ridge revival. I find it fascinating that the events are 105 years apart. 76.235.198.39 (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Joyce D in Michigan[reply]

I've taken the liberty of reformatting the 2 articles as links, as you were trying to make them footnote references. You could also just as easily have used double square brackets thus: Cane Ridge and Glossolalia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 13

Group pressure

Hello. For my life- Orientation asignment, I need to interview three different people about group pressure that had a deep influence on their life, but I don`t know anybody in my family or or in my social group that were affected by group pressure so deeply that it touched their lifes. Can I ask three people to please answer the following questions honestly?

If you have ever made a big mistake under the negative influence of someone else, how old were you?
Describe what happened
How did it touch your dreams?
How did it touch your self-image?
Please give a message to young people today who tend to be under group pressure to fall

Thank you for your time, trouble and honesty (If I had make a few language mistakes, please excuse me, English is not my home language) 41.14.99.163 (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do all or most of the members of your family follow the same religion? If so, it would probably be due to group pressure. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have answers to your questions (and I am not sure that the Wikipedia reference desk is the right place to ask these questions anyway), but I do have a comment. Your assignment seems to be encouraging you to view group pressure as an entirely negative force. I don't think this is always true. Here are some more positive examples of group pressure:

High positive expectations of family, colleagues and friends can be inspirational.
Many companies use group pressure to motivate their staff - they call it "team building".
Group pressure is a motivational factor in many sports - here it is called "competitiveness". Gandalf61 (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to survey a statistically significant number of people, smoking would probably be near the top of the list. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rose

Rose_Revolution#Funding_from_Soros-related_organizations

Why did people carry roses when they burst into that room?Curb Chain (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were used as a symbol of non-violence. Former President Zviad Gamsakhurdia was remembered as saying something along the lines of "we shall throw roses instead of bullets at our enemies" [3] (sometimes given as just "flowers"). This interview mentions the influence. Warofdreams talk 16:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

College vs. University

Having gone to add a category to my userpage reflecting the fact that I'm headed off to the University of Oklahoma, I got rather stumped by the fact that there is both Category:Wikipedian college students and a separate Category:Wikipedian university students. Through all my life "college" and "university" have been used pretty much synonymously (e.g. "Which college are you going to attend?" and "Which university are you going to attend?" would mean exactly the same thing), so I'm a bit confused as to what the difference is between the two. Is there some sort of difference that I'm oblivious to, and given that I'm going to attend the University of Oklahoma which category would I categorize my userpage into? Thanks in advance, Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, universities can award doctorates whereas colleges can't. But some universities retain college in their name after being given university accreditation, like Boston College. Colleges are generally smaller than universities, and many universities divide their different programs into college (Harvard College is for undergrads at Harvard University). As for which one to include on your userpage, either is correct. But since you're American (I assume since you're going to Oklahoma) you'd probably but yourself in a college student, as it's standard in US english to say "I'm in college" as opposed to the more British "I'm at university" Hot Stop (t) 19:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, a university confers degrees, while a college is for other kinds of qualifications. See, in particular, sixth form college. Some secondary schools, particularly private ones, have "college" in their name too. --Tango (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the UK, a "constituent college" can be a semi autonomous part of a Collegiate university. For instance, King's College, Cambridge or Balliol College, Oxford. Imperial College, London has parted company with the University of London altogether. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia most private schools (at high school level) had the word college in their name from the start, well over 100 years ago in some cases. From maybe 40 years ago, many government high schools started using the word college too, seemingly to try to improve their image. We even have P-12 colleges (that's Prep to Year 12) in the government system. The word has now lost all status value. University is where you go to get a degree or even higher qualification. HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which state HiLo48 is describing, the situation in New South Wales is a little different. Some private secondary schools have "college" in their names, while government secondary schools called "colleges" are a relatively recent creation and offer only the two senior years of secondary school (years 11 and 12 in the Australian system).

In New South Wales "prep(aratory)" is used by private schools only, government schools are divided into primary (kindergarten to year 6) and secondary (years 7 to 12).

There are also tertiary colleges in New South Wales, but these are not degree-conferring institutions and instead offer vocational and technical education and training.

The above aside, to follow up on the OP's query - in the US, would "at university" be unambiguously understood by everyone? Or would it sound unnatural compared to "in college"? For example, if someone wants it to be unambiguously understood that they attend a degree-conferring university rather than a non degree-conferring college, would they say they are "at university", or would that be so unnatural that they would still say they are "in college", despite the ambiguity? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were based on Victoria, but details aside, the general drift is still the same. I'm pretty certain some NSW private colleges have primary components too. One can be in college at 4 years old. HiLo48 (talk) 10:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usage is potentially confusing, wherever in the English-speaking world you are. I have posted at WP:UNI to try and get some improvement to our article College. If anyone would like to help out, with good sources... Itsmejudith (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Tell

Resolved

Did William Tell (a.k.a. Wilhelm Tell) really exist? --20:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read William Tell and come back if there is something you do not understand. --Jayron32 20:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not the OP here, but I read the first paragraphs (the lede) - it just says he was a "folk hero" and uses the word "legend". Did he really exist? 188.222.102.201 (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the Contents box is often a good idea. There's a "Historicity debate" in the article. Maybe read that and then come back if there is something you still do not understand. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still not the OP here, but I followed JackofOz's advice, and can now report that I know the answer. Marking this thread resolved. 188.222.102.201 (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article, he seems very likely to be an actual historical figure. The upstart revisionist historians denying it is especially convincing that the legend describes in some way actual historical events. As real a person as Moses, King David, Jesus of Nazareth, Pontius Pilate, St. George the Dragon Slayer, St. Nicholas, King Arthur, Molly Pitcher, John Henry the Steel Driving Man, Ol' Dan Tucker, Johnny Appleseed, or Casey Jones, and with about as good documentation as all but the last three. A human being did something remarkable, or was admirable in some way, and tales were told and songs were sung long after his passing. We should all be so lucky. Edison (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aww. I'll sing your songs after your passing, Edison... for a while... 188.222.102.201 (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bawdy songs, I'd hope. ;-) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, at least, songs about light bulbs and phonographs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 14

hinduism /thantric symbolisms of Lord Siva

What is the thantric significance of the symbolism having 3 leafs and a nose like structure ( GOLAKA) appearing in Lord Siva temples throughout Kerala.

ANCHERY DHILEEP VARMA KOCHI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.134.252 (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit confused as to what feature you are looking for. If you are refering to Goloka symbolism, the Wikipedia article is a bit sparse, but does seem to indicate some symbolism regarding the lotus, perhaps that is the three-leaved structure you are seeing? Since you reference Shiva as well, the Wikipedia article Shiva, under the section titled "Atributes" indicates that he is frequently shown with a Trishula, which has three points that could be described as leaves. The Trishula article discusses some of the symbolism of it. --Jayron32 05:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The real reason Annie Whitenmeyer home was closed

I am trying to find the public information as to the real reason the home was closed in I believe was the early 60's . I know the the real reason, I am just wondering if the truth was ever published. thank you. Rick Smith resident name ( Ricky Tanner) I can be contacted at email address redacted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.66.79 (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, I assume that the OP is referring to the Annie Wittenmyer Home, which was closed in 1975. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban healthcare

How does Cuba have such good healthcare even though it's so poor? --134.10.113.198 (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you a question first. Cuba has good healthcare?!? --Jayron32 19:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Healthcare in Cuba (which, for a poor country, is generally considered pretty good, at least in Latin America). WikiDao ☯ 19:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When Cuba was supported by the former USSR, they built extensive medical school, training, and hospital facilities as part of their outreach to the Latin American countries, so they ended up with far more capacity than would have ordinarily been built for a country of their size. When Soviet money dried up, the large number of trained teaching physicians have generally been able to maintain what would ordinarily be seen as an excess medical capacity. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"For years in Cuba, jobs as varied as farm workers and doctors only had a difference in their wages of the equivalent of a few US dollars a month. The average monthly wage in Cuba is around $20 (£10) leaving many Cubans struggling to make ends meet." [4]. (And note that farmers could presumably get free food, so that may make them effectively better off than the doctors.) I also understand that service people, like waiters, who gets tips from tourists, earn far more than many doctors. StuRat (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going back even further, it can be educational to look at the lives of Alberto Granado and "Che" Guevara, particularly the part told in The Motorcycle Diaries. There's a book and a film. They were both students in medical fields, who followed and applied their interests in their travels and later in Cuba. HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To explain it in a different way, let's start by comparing with a capitalist nation. There, resources are allocated according to ability to pay. So, a poor capitalist nation would have minimal medical care, as few could afford it. However, in a nation like Cuba, the dictator can simply declare medical care to be a priority and it becomes so. There is still the issue of how to pay for it, though. In Cuba's case, the doctors are paid virtual starvation wages, so that explains it. StuRat (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think Cuban doctors are paid virtual starvation wages? Don't they have merit pay? I suspect the main difference might be that Cuban pays its specialties according to demand, while in the U.S. we pay according to average earning ability based on expected cases. Do you think the U.S. could ever offer residents general practitioner positions with more pay than a brain or heart surgeon? We need to reward all the professions in a manner consistent with their demand, so it's an administrative detail as to whether we actually do, I hope. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and while Cuba has always had a strong ratio of doctors to population, I imagine it won't have been so well resourced with modern equipment and medicines. HiLo48 (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While our article points out serious problems with the way the Cuban government treats its medical professionals, the country does have good enough care to have a lower infant mortality rate than the United States, and about the same overall life expectancy rate. Insert coughing and extremely unsubtle promotion of the dread specter of socialized medicine :-) ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 18:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't say such bad things about Medicare, it may be popular with voters. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two contradictory articles

Bastille#Storming says that "over 120 of the guards of the Bastille were murdered" after the surrender, while the main article--Storming_of_the_Bastille--says most guards left safely. Imagine Reason (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there were 243 guards. 188.222.102.201 (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) The word "murdered" is a loaded word, and probably shouldn't be used in this particular context, unless there were formal trials under the due process of law, and there are convictions involved. I doubt it in this case, so a more neutral word ("died", or "were killed") may be more appropriate. 2) Forget what the Wikipedia articles say. What does the source material say? That is, those statements need references. I haven't looked at the articles yet, but in general you should always check the sources when there is a disagreement. --Jayron32 00:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An IP changed "some of the guards" to "over 120 of the guards" in [5]. I have reverted it. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there were about 30 Swiss guards and 80 or 85 Invalides, so some of those guys would have had to have done double duty! Clarityfiend (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I suddenly imagining the following scene at the fall of the Bastille (with due credit to Monty Python):

Commander of the Bastille Guard: Mes Amis! You shall not have been murdered in vain!
Guard: Uh, we-we're not quite dead, sir.
Commander: Well, you shall not have been mortally wounded in vain!
Guard: Uh, I-I think uh, we could pull through, sir.
Commander: Oh, I see.
Guard: Actually, I think we are all right to come with you.
Commander: No, no, mes amis! Stay here! I will send help as soon as I have accomplished a daring and heroic escape in my own particular... (sigh)
Guard: Idiom, sir?
Commander: Idiom!
Guard: No, we feel fine, actually, sir.
Commander: Farewell, mes amis! (rushes off)
Guard: We'll-uh, We'll just stay here, then, shall we, sir? Yeah. Blueboar (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 15

Historically accurate painting of Jesus' crucifixion

Does anybody know of a painting of Jesus' crucifixion that tries to be historically accurate? I've yet to see one that portrays Jesus as Middle Eastern instead of white, has "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" written on top in 3 languages, and features a T-shaped cross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.16.144 (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very difficult to be truly historically accurate since all evidence indicates that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, and even if you go with what people claim about his existence, it is filled with opinion, hope, speculation, assumption, conflicting ideas and so on. However, I guess this should be interpreted as a quest for the best historically accurate depiction based on what would likely to be the case, given where he lived, his ethnic background, the details of the common practices of crucifixions and so on. I looked but was not able to find much. See [6] and [7].--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is just, well... wrong. There is no evidence afaik suggesting he didn't exist (none that I have heard about from several noted biblical archaeologists, all of whom are Jews btw). The earliest evidence about him is from 70 AD of course, so it's very sketchy. So there's no evidence suggesting he didn't exist, but no evidence that decisively says he did exist yet. To answer the OP. I'll bet someone has made a painting in recent years that matches what you're probably looking for. A man with olive complexion crucified through his wrists and hands. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I would go so far as to say that he definitively didn't exist. The best thing we can say is that we don't know how accurately the Gospels portay him in terms of historical accuracy, but there is pretty good consensus that he was a real person, in the same sense that other semi-mythic figures, such as the Buddha or King Arthur, that is there are real people behind the stories, its just that the details of their stories aren't well corroborated by other evidence. In other words, there was probably really a dude who lived in Israel at the time who probably led some sort of minor rebellion/heretical movement and may have been executed for it. How much of his story has been preserved accurately, and how much was embelished by his followers is, from a historical point of view, unknown, and possibly unknowable. But to say "all evidence indicates that he didn't exist" is plainly false also. --Jayron32 17:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And we have now wandered into a frequent topic at the Fringe Theories notice board, that of the Jesus myth theory. Jayron's view is, I believe, more currently accepted among scholars, but Fuhghettaboutit's view is also well represented among serious academics. You must realize that this field of scholarly research, more so than pretty much any other field, is tainted by the personal beliefs of those involved, and it can be hard for an outsider to truly get a grasp on how valid the current research is by different parties. Buddy431 (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you refer to as "historically accurate" is based on opinion, not historical fact. With 2,000 years (about 100 generations) between the time of Jesus and the present, are you claiming that you are absolutely certain that the physical appearance of those around Israel/Palestine now is exactly as they appeared back then? If you want a factual example of how appearances change, look at Italy with African influence on the south and Germanic influence on the north. You can choose to have Jesus be anything you like. I live in a predominantly black area, so many people have paintings and pictures of Jesus as a black man, not white. I've also seen pictures of him as Asian. Then, there is the T-shaped cross. That is an assumption. There are historical records of using a T-shaped cross. There are historical records of using a pole. There are historical records of using a high branch of a tree. So, we just assume they used a T-shaped cross that time? Then, why three languages and that specific message? All in all, it is no more historical than the popular paintings. -- kainaw ™ 00:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I referred to as "historically accurate" was my impression of what most academics believe, not personal opinion. If you think the academic consensus is different, please explain why instead of trying to shoot down what you think are my own theories. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current academic concensus afaik is that he did exist, but we don't have good enough evidence yet (hell, we didn't have evidence of Pontius Pilatus's existence until an amphitheatre dedicated by him was found). To some extent a lot of what people say is based on History Channel and NatGeo specials (that will piss off a lot of people, I know, but it's true). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of Jesus' existence is hardly contested. Third century forgers simply would not have had the facts available to them to allow them to interpolate into Jesus' reported speech matters which have only recently become understandable through textual analysis in light of such long-lost evidence as the dead sea scrolls and so forth. Forgers would also not have inserted matters which are difficult for Christians to explain such as his brothers, his doubts on the cross, and his anger at the temple--these humanistic touches contradict the perfect and divine view that any would-be-forgers would have had. In effect, the imperfection of the 'forgery' proves its authenticity. There is nothing wrong with seeking out an historically plausible depiction of the event. But my favorite is Dali's Corpus Hypercubus. μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars, non-Christian and Christian, acknowledge that Epistles of Paul were written by him and probably less than 40 years after Jesus's death and so within living memory of those who knew Jesus. But a fierce Roman invasion of Israel and Jerusalem in 70 AD in which many people were slaughtered and whole towns raized probably destroyed much evidence. Yet a huge amount of non Christian evidence can still be got. The Roman historian Tacitus (first century) writes of Christus who suffered at the hands of Pontius Pilate. Also the Jewish historian Josephus in his Antiqities who writes of "James the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ". Julius Africanus reported that someone called Thallus spoke of the darkness that came after the execution of Jesus. The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) described the crucifixion/hanging of Jesus at the time of the Passover. Many of these sources also describe Jesus's activities some calling him a good man, a magician, a sourcerer. I think its fair to say that the man existed and that he had a following as a holy man in his own lifetime. --Bill Reid | (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to Jayron, the original responder before Say Shalom! interlineated above him) I don't think you mean that article but probably Historicity of Jesus. Doesn't matter. We don't have an article that deals with the issue in any proper way. The evidence (mostly negative evidence, with both for and against being, by necessity, inductive in nature) is that he did not. The area is so full of apologetics and confirmation bias, a great deal of the scholarship coming from those assuming the truth of the question at issue and working to find evidence to support the result, that a statement about the consensus of scholars in this area is worthless until your separate out who are approaching the topic from an untainted place to actually consider the question from a logical standpoint, seeking to find the answer to a question, wherever evidence and logic would lead them. This is not an atheistic thing, though I am an atheist. I find religion fascinating, and have no stake in finding one way or the other, but it is very difficult to let the evidence take you were it will when one is a believer which, perforce of that belief, assumes already that of course Jesus existed, making it near impossible for one to approach the question scientifically. From the standpoint of someone examining it like an archeologist, the lack of evidence where it should be seen is startlingly and the arguments for his existence are, where they aren't begging the question which is seen in a vast amount of the scholarship, relatively weak rationalizations. To get into a vast debate over the evidence is probably beyond the scope here. I have read much in the area and stand by what I said.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three languages - see

T-shape - see

White Crucifixion 1938
Starck Triptych c. 1480
The Beautiful Mess contemporary
Freiburg altar 1512 (may also have three languages but it's hard to tell)
Crucifixion by Jorg Breu the Elder 1524
this sketch by Michaelangelo
Tergensee Passion 1446 (though this looks like an old man, so I'm not sure if it is supposed to be Jesus)
this by Master of the Virgo inter Virgines 1490 (though maybe it's just cut off at the top of the image)
Crucifixion by Paolo Veneziano 1390
Crucifix in Assissi by Cimabue 1280

Your other criterion I'm not really sure how to evaluate. Jesus has a darker skin in this image. 184.147.120.65 (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a source numerous times

I'm writing a rather lengthy research paper utilizing 45 different sources. I'm using the Tiburian citation style because it is footnote friendly. I know how to use the style when listing in footnotes and the bibliography, but what if I cite 2 or 3 of the same books over and over again? Is there an abbreviated format in Tiburian style that I can use, like "last name, page #" or "last name, book name, page #"? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean Turabian. There is an abbreviated footnote format. See this guide. You usually use "Last name, Abbreviated book name, page #." You can also use "Last name, page #," too. Just be consistent either way. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ibid. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 part question about ADOLF HITLER

ok the first part of this question IS. Does Hitler have any living progeny or relatives, and if so have they been OUTED. if they have been outed, so to speak, do people harrass them because they are related? I think harrassment is wrong, so you don't need to list their names here, I am just wondering if it has ever happened.

My second question is about the surname HITLER. Before World War II, was it a common name in German-speaking lands? or was it highly unusual?--Fran Cranley (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we know at what level of knowledge that you're starting from, have you read the Hitler family article? Dismas|^(talk) 04:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you ask that question. I did read some things on Wikipedia about Hitler's relatives but I can't find anything about his relatives that are alive TO THIS DAY, nor about whether they have experienced harrassment. I am not talking about the 1960s, etc, I mean in contemporary times.--Fran Cranley (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no members of his immediate family still living. His sister, Paula Hitler was the only one of his 5 siblings to reach adulthood, and she had no offspring. Hitler had none, either. That line is finished. The article Hitler family shows lines at the level of the siblings of Hitler's parents and grandparents who may have living descendents, but the last date there, and it is for the Braun family rather than the Hitlers, is 1972. Bielle (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Leo Rudolf Raubal Jr, who was Hitler's half-nephew (the son of his half-sister Angela Hitler). Leo Rudolf Raubal Jr is deceased, but he had children who appear to be still alive; his children (which would be Hitler's half-grand-nephews and half-grand-neices) would be Hitlers closest relatives still alive. Hitler had several other half-siblings as well, and their grandchildren (such as the living children of William Patrick Hitler) would be equally as closely related. There appears to be roughly a half-dozen or so living "half-grand-nephews/neices" of Hitler roaming the planet, and these are his closest living relatives. --Jayron32 04:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your second question, see this archived question. "Adolf's father, Alois Hitler, was illigitimate, but took the surname of Johann Georg Hiedler who married his mother when Alois was 5 years old. The name Hitler seems to have been the product of a bureaucratic spelling mistake.". Alansplodge (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name Hitler was unusual or unique in the German-speaking countries and now appears very likely to have died out (though distant relatives with other surnames are alive today). Marco polo (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed a Hitler in the German telephone guide. I suppose he is the subject of constant telephone pranks by German teenagers.

Purchasing power in Russia and the Baltic states.

I've been using an interesting website - http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/ - for getting information on average salaries, cost of living and costs of individual products and services recently. Curiously, their information on the local purchasing power seems to suggests the purchasing power (and mean salaries) are higher in Russia, compared with Latvia or Lithuania (they still have Estonia's purchasing power as higher than in Russia).

To be honest, I find this really surprising. Can anyone corroborate this or dispute their findings? For I've been expecting the purchasing power and salaries in Russia to be lower than in those two Baltic economies (other statistics give Russia's HDI as much lower than in those countries). Does anyone have information on the data offered? Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics from the European Commission have some information on the cost of living in Lithuania and Latvia; there's also some more information in the Working conditions > Renumeration section. Comparing these with the figures for Russia from Numbeo, it does appear that salaries in Russia are higher, as are the costs of goods (providing I'm not reading/converting incorrectly!) --Kateshortforbob _talk 13:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not all that surprising to me, as Russia quickly moved to capitalism, while many of the other communist nations were slower to adapt. This, combined with a lack of subsidies from Russia and trade with the Warsaw Pact, in many cases led to stagnant economies, such as in Cuba. StuRat (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not true. In particular it is not true when comparing Baltics and Russia (though I guess it's true for Russia vs. Cuba). Anyway, I'm not sure what the surprise is. Cost of living is usually higher in richer countries - see Balassa-Samuelson effect. So the fact that it is higher in Latvia and Estonia should come as no surprise. The only weird thing is the "Local Purchasing Power" entry - but really, who knows how they came up with that, what it actually represents or how they got their data. In fact, this sort of looks like it's just a user generated site where anyone can enter whatever they think happens to be right. Overall, this is junk.

If you want real numbers then you got to go to international organizations which actually invest a buttload of money in gathering data, double checking it etc. You can also see official government websites but those usually are not going to adjust for purchasing power parity deviations (i.e. different prices across countries). You should also be suspicious of any place that gives you "up to date" (like 2011 or even 2010) data. Quite simply it takes about 6 months just to collect the data under ideal circumstances (in the richest countries) and at least another 6 months to process it. So anything that's remotely accurate is going to be for 2009 or before.

So, looking at World Bank data really quick gives:

Converted at market exchange rates, Estonia's 2009 per capita GDP is 6113$, Latvia's is 4973$ (down from 6296$ in 2007 because of the recent crisis) and Russia's is 2805$. So Russia's per capita GDP is 45% of Estonia, and 56% of Latvia's (even taking into account that Latvia was especially hit by the financial crisis). Now, of course these numbers don't adjust for differences in cost of living across countries.

So, converted at purchasing power parity adjustment (this is done relative to the $, hence, implicitly to each other), Estonia's 2009 per capita GDP is 16132$, Latvia's 12847$ (down from 16265$ in 2007) and Russia's is 13611$. Russia's PPP adjusted per capita GDP is then 84% of Estonia's and it is 5% higher than Latvia's. What this means is that yes, cost of living is lower in Russia than in the two Baltic countries (I forgot to pull Lithuanian data and don't feel like doing it again). The fact that stuff costs more in Estonia reduces the gap between it's average income and Russian average income from a 55% difference to a 16% difference. For Latvia it goes from Latvia being seemingly richer by 46% to Latvia being poorer - once costs of living are taken into account - by 5%. Again, for Latvia this comes from the fact that the financial crisis was particularly severe. If they bounce back from it they'll likely experience a couple years of very rapid growth and it will look very much like the Estonia-Russia difference.

One last word about the Human Development Index - that takes even longer to compile. In addition to per capita income it includes the level of education and life expectancy. In terms of education levels there's probably very little difference between the Baltics and Russia (since they pretty much inherited the same educational system and this kind of thing is very "sticky"). Likewise, Eastern Europe as a whole tends to have a low life expectancy given it's income - all that drinking and smoking. I'd guess that Russia's probably lower than Estonia's and Latvia's, so the difference in the HDI would be slightly greater than the differences in per capita incomes. But that's just a conjecture. I might look it up tomorrow.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@StuRart: I'm afraid you are wrong on most accounts. Shock therapy in the Baltic states was actually more aggressively pursued than in Russia and given the higher GDP in the soviet Baltic republics one can doubt as to who had been subsidizing whom.

@VM: Yes, I was aware of the differences in GDP, but seemingly believed the income in Russia to be still considerably lower than in Lithuania/Latvia (perhaps also because of my memory clinging to comparisons made here in Estonia concerning Estonia vs. Russia, leaving the two other Baltic states out and also considering that although GDPwise Estonia ranks a bit higher than Poland, yet the salaries seem to be a bit lower - and most definitely were some years ago (I remember a document on that from around the time of our EU accession).

The input to the NUMBEO 'local purchasing power' indicator includes 'Median Monthly Disposable Salary (After Tax)' which they claim to be higher in Russia (than in LT/LV). I will try to find verifiable materials on salaries (just googled this link: [8] “Personal disposable income went up 3.2 percent to 18,183 rubles ($648) in May” i.e. 458 euros). They indeed have it higher in Russia. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philosopher

Is it possible to be recognized as a philosopher without a formal academic degree in philosophy? --Owlzz (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Read about Eric Hoffer, a self-educated "longshoreman philosopher," who was widely honored for his original contributions in numerous books about philosophy and the psychology of mass movements. Edison (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can be recognized as just about anything without "formal training", there are many alternate paths to careers and vocations, and some people without formal training in a field go on to be very notable in that field. Srinivasa Ramanujan was a very skilled mathematician who had almost no formal schooling at all. My wife had a college professor who, before he earned his PhD, hadn't had any schooling beyond the eighth grade. He literally went, on paper from not having a high school diploma to having a PhD. While the path to getting a job is harder for people without any training at all, it isn't impossible. What you need to be "recognized" is the ability to do the job; while a training certificate or diploma is a convenient means to "prove" said ability, you can also prove it by, well, doing it. --Jayron32 15:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Ramanujan had considerable formal schooling, starting school at age 5, and attending primary school, secondary school and college until he was 18 or 19. Unfortunately, from his early teens onwards, his obsession with mathematics lead to a lack of interest and poor performance in all other subjects. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But he still had no "academic degree" in mathematics, and his mathematical skills were not taught to him as part of any formal school program. He didn't get his PhD and then start working in the field, his knowledge of mathematics is almost completely self-taught and we are still "allowed" to call him a mathematician despite all of that. The point is merely that being something isn't contingent upon having a piece of paper that says you are it. --Jayron32 16:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't work with everything, though. You can have the best driving skills in the world but if you've never held a licence, or the one you had has expired or been cancelled, then there's no way you can be a "licenced driver". You really do need that little card to be that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. But we're talking about academic qualifications and professions, not driving cars. I suppose your exception would work for jobs like Truck Driver and some highly regulated professions like "Surgeon" and "Lawyer", but there are still lots of professions in the world where "being able to do the job" is enough. I'm not positive either, but I do believe that even with someone like a Lawyer, being able to pass the bar exam should qualify you as a lawyer even if you didn't have a degree. It may still be technically possible to be a self-trained lawyer. --Jayron32 21:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that Ramanujan was something of an unknown until a guy with a PhD picked him up, took him to a university setting, and told everyone how brilliant he was. It's not like he was living in a hut away from academia or anything. It really depends who you want to be recognized by. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Aristotle, Plato and Socrates didn't have PhDs. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So all you need are togas? (Seriously, the ancients aren't exactly useful for discussing anything modern relating to being recognized as something.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plato founded the Academy of Athens, which was virtually the beginning of modern academia (hence the name), and Aristotle studied and taught there for several years. So by the standards of the day they were as scholarly certified as they could be. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing Plato did had much to do with the material or social circumstances of the present. I suspect that what Plato and Aristotle did at said institutions had virtually no relationship with what is currently done in the academy. The modern research university is a very new institution by comparison. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand. μηδείς (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure any card-carrying philosophers consider her to be much of a philosopher. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends who you want to be recognized by. Academic philosophy is an inward-looking institution that, like most of academia, doesn't really acknowledge the possibility that anyone outside of academia has a brain. You're going to have a hard time getting them to care about your work unless you speak their language verbatim, and even then, if you don't have a position to back you up, then you're just an "independent scholar" which is a term that means "totally crazy person" to an established academic.

If you don't care about academia, then it's just a matter of impressing a lot of other people. Ayn Rand is an example — she wrote books that purportedly contained a lot of philosophy. Very few academic philosophers would consider her "philosophical" work to be of much interest. But the general interest is there, to the point that she's still a best-selling author. Her best-sellingness has of course encouraged academics to pay more attention to her than they would otherwise.

Having a PhD does not mean "I am very smart." It means, "I did my time in the trenches, I got up to speed on the formal canon you expect me to know, and if it's from a good institution, I'm either good at standardized testing or are well-connected or are clearly fairly clever." For other academics it's the mandatory pass to say "ok, you can talk to us," but it doesn't mean a whole lot objectively beyond that. That's not to knock 'em — they do mean something — but it's important to recognize that they are more like a passport to a rather insular and isolated country than they are like a certification of intelligence. (I say this as someone who has one such passport.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, although I titles this post "Philosopher", I am talking about recognition in any field as an expert without formal academic degree in that field. I found the name of architect like Daniel Burnham who did not have degree in architecture. --Owlzz (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition by whom? μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on the field in any case. Some fields of study are more amenable to outsiders than others. It does not surprise me that a practice-based field like architecture would have a few people in it who displayed their expertise through their works than their fields. In some fields this is very unlikely. But you're also picking an example from the 19th century, before many fields professionalized too much anyway. It doesn't make any sense to pick very old historical examples as models of the present. A huge amount has changed in professionalization of many fields since then. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buying a house, an apartment, and condominiums in population declining cities

I got a friend who says that he wants to move to either Chicago where he grew up or Detroit where he was born. I read that both Chicago's and Detroit's population has decreased significantly. In 1950, Chicago had a population of over 3.6 million people, and Detroit had a population of over 1.84 million, but today Chicago has about 2.7 million and Detroit has over 700,000 people. Does that mean that with less people in those cities today, there are a lot of empty houses, apartments, and condos now, and my friend buying a house, a condo, or an apartment in either those cities would be much easier now than in the 1950s? Would that make them cheaper too? Willminator (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, yes. At least to some extent. I'm not too familiar with Chicago/Detroit real estate prices, but some Swedish regions have an experience of depopulation over last decades. You may find a house in some distant parts of Smaland and Norrbotten for 50,000 SEK (the same house in Stockholm might cost well over 4 million SEK). I saw a newsreport once of a family-sized house (seemingly with multiple bedrooms) outside Boden being sold for 10,000 SEK cash about 5-6 years ago (in Stockholm people can pay up to 10,000 SEK for 1 month rent for a tiny apartment in the city). Basically, you have people who own a house they moved out from long ago and are willing to sell as fast as possible.

That however applies mainly to individual houses for sale. With apartments it might be quite different. Probably many of the apartment blocks that housed workers in Detroit have been torn down by now, so the supply of apartments is not necessarily much larger. To maintain a large multi-apartment building is quite costly, and if the owner has several unrented apartments for a longer time it is likely the building will be torn down or converted into something else.

Also, do bear in mind that consumers in 1950 might have had different preferences than today. Perhaps people lived in larger families in rather crowded spaces? Then the number of apartments might be static, just that each individual occupies a much larger space. --Soman (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And would that mean that that the opposite is true for cities with a growing population; that it is harder to find and more expensive to buy a house or condo in cities with growing populations like New York (yep, I said New York) and Los Angeles? Willminator (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The decline in Detroit is well-documented by the media including a year-long series by Time magazine. One of the mayor's major promises was to tear down 3,000 houses a year (so far, on schedule, too). He also put together a panel to investigate abandoning sections of the city (or converting them to farms). Affording a home in the city is only one issue. Rmhermen (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the two cities that you name: Chicago is more expensive than in the 1950s, with very little empty housing, while Detroit is much cheaper, with lots of empty housing. While Chicago's urban population has declined, its overall population has swelled by 70% since the 1950s. Nationwide, the size of the average American house is 2.5 times larger than in the 1950s. Inner-city Chicago is no exception: lots of places that squeezed in a family of 6 or so in the 1950s are now typically for families of 2 or 3. What makes Detroit different is that its population decline has been sharper, and while in 1950 Detroit was wealthy by American standards, now it's poor by American standards. --M @r ē ino 17:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Half price Detroit homes Rmhermen (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(after many ECs)Chicago is VERY different than Detroit. Chicago has become heavily gentrified, in that many older, poorer neighborhoods have been torn down and replaced by very rich neighborhoods. When I was living in Chicago (1998-2000), I lived in Little Italy, Chicago, a part of the Near West Side, Chicago. I lived in a third-floor appartment of one of those ubiquitous Chicago graystones, but when I walked to campus at UIC where I was attending grad school at the time, I walked right past some of the most blighted, run-down housing project blocks in the city. They were literally tearing those down and replacing them with $500,000 two bedroom townhomes. The population decline in Chicago is mostly a result of gentrification; that is old high-density housing blocks being replaced by relatively lower density, and very expensive, upper-middle-class housing. Chicago is suffering from the same depression in housing prices as anywhere, but you are still not going to find any "steals" there, land and housing is very expensive. Detroit is another matter entirely. For various reasons outside of the scope of this question, Chicago has not really suffered the sort of "rust belt" economic collapse that Detroit has, and as a result, where as Chicago has become gentrified, Detroit has become abandoned. You can literally buy a single family home in Detroit for under $1000 (not that you'd necessarily want to live in it), consider that the Silverdome stadium Sold for the same price as a 1200-square foot condo in Chicago. Detroit is in a vastly different situation. The city is currently in the process of evacuating and disincorporating large swaths of territory. If price is your only concern (say, you can work from home and don't need a job and could literally live anywhere), and you do your research and find a decent neighborhood, Detroit definitely offers some real "steal", from a real-estate point of view. If you can afford a home in Chicago, you may be able to afford a whole neighborhood in Detroit. Or maybe a Stadium. --Jayron32 18:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a Detroiter, I have to address some misconceptions:

1) The Pontiac Silverdome is not in Detroit. It's in Pontiac, another Michigan city with similar problems. (It's might be considered a Detroit suburb, but note that there are nice suburbs between the two, which are thriving.)

2) The decline in Detroit city population is caused by white flight and, more recently, the collapse of the American-made automobile industry (due largely to globalization).

3) While the population of Detroit proper has been declining for decades, much of that is movement to the suburbs, so the Detroit metropolitan area population has been more or less steady.

4) While Detroit Mayor Dave Bing did propose closing off parts of the city, that proposal didn't got over well, and seems dead-in-the-water to me.

5) Even within Detroit, the decline is highly patchy. That is, some areas are abandoned with nothing left but squatters and crack houses, while other communities are doing well. Of course, the house prices are higher in the good areas, but still well below the national average.

6) Beware that Detroit proper has a city income tax, so perhaps a suburb might be better, if you want to avoid that. StuRat (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of going to go go off topic a bit, but I got to point something out that you all seem to be saying. Correct me if I misunderstood you all. It seems like you guys are saying that the reason Chicago’s population is declining is because its doing better since the city is becoming gentrified, but from what I’ve read Chicago is becoming poorer and doing worse like, Detroit. Retail taxes in Chicago are the highest in the country, the public school system is pretty bad and is bad and empty, and crime is becoming worse. “The horrible public schools, high taxes, and crime have driven families out of Chicago." Willminator (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I lived there a little over 10 years ago, but I didn't see a "city in decline". Yeah, Chicago had its shithole neighborhoods, but in general it wasn't a bad city to live in. My wife goes back every year (sometimes more often) for training at McCrone Research Institute, and she hasn't reported any sort of Escape from New York-type urban apocalypse that the article you have cited seems to make out the city to be under. The article cites some copious statistics to make its case, including population declines, all of which could be true, but I'm not sure it effectively makes the case that the lower population necessarily indicates a city in true economic decline. Maybe all those half-million-dollar condos I witnessed going up have reverted to slums in the past decade, but if you want a real picture of home prices in Chicago and Detroit, look at these two maps: Chicago and Detroit. I'm not sure they need a lot of explanation. For comparison, the median home price for the entire midwest region was $136,400 as of July 6, 2011. By that metric, considering that prices in Chicago are almost half again as big as that number, while Detroit's are about 1/3 of that number says a lot about the economic health of the two cities. The demise of Chicago is likely being highly exagerated by the article you cited... --Jayron32 05:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks bro. Not to go off topic, but I have to admit I laughed a bit when I saw you said "s**thole." Willminator (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One other advantage to a city with a declining population is fewer traffic jams (although construction crews do their best to create traffic jams, by closing all but one lane for months before and after any actual work). StuRat (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Random capitalization

I was reading up on the USA Constitution and was wondering why random words are capitalized in the text, such as: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Any ideas? -- Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.85.199.241 (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the 18th century it was common to capitalise all nouns, as is the case in German now. It went out of style in the 19th century and I would be interested to read when and why. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought it was fun to read the capitalized words as indicators of verbal emphasis. I wonder if that holds any water: sure, "the common defence" is important enough to bear mention in a nation's Constitution, but what we're really doing with this newfangled document is to establish Justice-with-a-capital-J! A handy cheat sheet passed with love from Jefferson down to future high school students (i.e. his Posterity). ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 18:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{[ec}}I'm pretty sure that particular usage died out very soon after the Constitution was written; by the early-to-mid 1800's many American authors were devoloping a more modern approach to capitalization, for example the works of people like Emily Dickinson and the Transcendentalist authors (Thoreau, Emerson, Hawthorne, etc.) don't show the capitalization convention shown in the constitution. Here is Ralph Waldo Emerson's Essays: First Series, published in 1841: [9]. Compare to Susanna Rowson's novel Charlotte Temple published 50 years before, in 1791 [10]. It doesn't capitalize every noun, but you can see some strange capitalizations like in the Constitution (the phrase "Tale of Truth", for example, or the word "Fancy"). It seems the modern capitalization convention developed in sometime between those two works. Checking Washington Irving's work The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, published smack between the other two works, in 1820, we find a completely modern capitalization as well: [11]. So that narrows it down even more; it most definately changed sometime around the turn of the 19th century. As to why it happened, my suspicion is that it occured due to the influence of the great dictionary writers like Noah Webster, which is really when the modern American form of English took shape as distinct from the British forms. No definitive proof of that, however. --Jayron32 18:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I suspect the behaviour of editors, publishers and printers is more significant than the behaviour of authors. I wonder whether the USA was first in adopting the present convention or whether Britain was, or whether the change happened at the same time in both countries.

It seems the French came first. At least from a quick browse of 17th and 18th century French books on Google Books, it is obvious that they did not capitalise nouns in French. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above posters wondered which country first adopted non-capitalization in English, not in some other language... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know that those Project Guttenberg pages reflect the capitalization of the first edition of the works? If the works were reprinted later in the 19th or 20th century, things like capitalization would probably have been editorially emended, and if the PG version is taken from one of those, then of course it will show a more modern editorial style. Pais (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which U.S. officials could propose a two bracket income tax only treaty?

Which authorities in the U.S. executive branch (and Senate? e.g. Carl Levin[12]) have the authority to propose a multilateral treaty converting tax systems from sales and property taxes to two bracket income taxes only? Would such a proposal work better as an amendment to an existing tax treaty than as a new treaty? 99.24.223.58 (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can propose a treaty. Only the executive branch can negotiate a treaty. In principle such a negotiation can be carried out by anybody empowered by the president to do so. The resulting treaty would be subject to Advice and Consent by the Senate -- I suspect though that because of the fiscal implications the House of Representatives would also have to agree in some way. Looie496 (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that there were specific official(s) in the State, Commerce, or other executive departments whose job responsibility includes tax treaty negotiations. I understand that the president might need to approve such proposals, but I wonder, for example, if a cabinet secretary or one of their designees could begin such negotiations without prior explicit presidential approval. Have citizen diplomats ever initiated treaty negotiations? 99.24.223.58 (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any official negotiation needs to be authorized by the president. It is always possible to have preliminary unofficial negotiations, which can be conducted by anybody, but they would only be discussions and wouldn't imply any formal commitment. Diplomats in general are very wary about negotiating with people who don't have the authority to reach a binding agreement. Looie496 (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the appropriate point of contact would be Robert Hormats. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what's the best way to deal with a socipath

I am closing this discussion. The Reference Desk is not the place for personal advice. Please contact the appropriate authorities and/or professionals for information and guidance. Neutrality^talk 22:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

say a sociopath who had been a vague acquaintance - and not a good one - has just beaten you up severely. what's the best course of action for optimizing the rest of your life? (Not asking for legal advice: obviously you can have them thrown in jail and go through a legal process or whatever: how does that help you?) Is is just cutting off contact with them entirely, etc? Thanks. 188.222.102.201 (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word sociopath is so widely misused that I am not willing to make a guess at what you mean by it. Looie496 (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

take hannibal lector. 188.222.102.201 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting them to the police keeps them from doing it to others (or at least making it clear they have that record). If they did it to you, they'll likely do it to others. If someone had reported them before they beat you up, they might not have done it. And of course there's no reason they couldn't come back and haunt you in the future — unless they know that messing with you will call down the law on them. So those are a few good reasons to think that talking to the police would be a good idea, all other factors ignored. Of course, I know that in real life things can be complicated, but unless there's some really compelling reason not to report them, you probably ought to.

As for yourself — consider talking to a professional. Getting severely attacked by another human being is a traumatic experience. You shouldn't try to hash it out on your own. Obviously you're not trying to do that — you're at least asking on here, which shows you recognize that it's beyond your own ability to cope with. But anonymous people online are a poor proxy for trained psychological assistance. A counselor can help you figure out what you need to do to "optimizing the rest of your life," with full knowledge about yourself, the event in question, the attacker, and "your life," about which we know absolutely nothing. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Mr. 98. You need to explain it to someone. Either someone you know well, or a professional. Just feel free to see your doctor and explain it, and ask to be referred to a specialist. Or tell a friend, you can keep the details anonymous. Telling us online is only the very first step. If you have no idea at all who to contact next, go to Samaritans who are always there. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

guys, take hannibal lector as your example. if you realize hannibal lector is nonfictional and in your circle, and has hurt you but only some modest extent (say punched you in the gut, whatever, nothing you can't shrug off), then what is the best next step? 188.222.102.201 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has just battered you, the criminal justice system needs to know about it so that it can be prevented from happening again. That helps you directly because if it does happen again you are more likely than most to also be a subsequent victim of an even worse beating. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am always dubious about stories where the facts are stated so ambiguously. We have now gone from "beaten you up severely" to "hurt you but only to some modest extent". What is it that actually happened? Did your little brother shove you? (Sorry for being so suspicious; maybe I've watched Judge Judy too much.) Looie496 (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know what will PREVENT things from happening. Obviously everything is a question of interpretation of intent, etc. If your INTERPRETATION is that the person who has just hurt you has the personality of Hannibal Lector, what's the best way to handle this interaction? (The first, "beaten up severely" is the actual example, with the second one -- hurt you but only to some modest extent" being a hypotehtical. BUt let's be clear: compared to getting butchered and eaten by Lector, "beaten up severely" is mild -- it goes away.). The question is, if it does go away, how do you best handle the interaction going forward? (If your judgment is it could happen again at any time.) 188.222.102.201 (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference Desks can't give you legal or medical advice. Similarly, you might find yourself unable to support a claim that someone has the personality of a fictional sociopathic serial killer without reliable independent sources agreeing with the diagnosis. Therefore, consult with a qualified medical or legal professional about the proper way to respond. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, the reference desk is not the correct place to ask for advice. Of any kind. At all. Even if it isn't medical or legal advice. If you read the header, it says "if you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere" If you want advice, find someone you trust (a parent, teacher, counselor, etc.) Random strangers on the internet, like me, are unreliable and should not be trusted with matters as serious as this. --Jayron32 22:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to ask about what to call a color, or a plant or animal, and sometimes some kinds of rocks, but you may not ask whether you are allowed to paint or throw rocks at the person next to you. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you really suspect he's a potential serial killer, then stay the heck away. If he shows up where you are, leave. If he stalks you, change your phone number, move, change your name, etc. I'm rather skeptical about police doing anything other than escalate the conflict, unless you have evidence of a serious crime. StuRat (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember who we are: we are a bunch of men and women, and possibly a few kids, sitting around answering peoples' questions, and the questions we field tend to be information requests, along the lines of, for example "What is this saint in the pictured statue?" We do not typically handle this kind of request though I'm glad you came to someone), and are certainly not qualified to give advice on the matter. Even if we have legal advisors and councillors in our ranks (and I have no reason to suspect that any of us who have answered are), we couldn't ethically give you the advice you seek, as we don't know any of the details, and frankly couldn't get much of a better grasp on it even if you wrote pages on it (not to mention that giving that sort of advice is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia policy). Quite simply, the only thing we can really say is to go seek qualified help, such as a councillor, who would then be able to give you advice on how to proceed (my grandmother works with these kinds of situations). I wish you the best of luck, and I hope that your issues are resolved. The one thing that I will say, in all seriousness, is that if you happen to be a woman, and the attacker happens to be a man (or vice versa), do NOT hesitate to go to the councillor, as soon as practical (and I strongly think that it would be good to consider it anyways). In fact, if you couldn't get in with a councillor, then I would consider other options (staying with family not related to the situation, or going to other authorities), until you can get in with a councillor. I say that not because you have indicated in any manner that that's the case (and nor do I ask you to indicate whether that was the case), but just because I personally feel like it was important enough to say. Also, ask yourself, if you are worried about it happening at anytime, will it ever go away if you ignore it? That's it, I'm already getting way to close to what would be appropriate to say here. Falconus^{p t c} 02:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that this thread hasn't been deleted as legal advice and more. That being said, File a police report, acquire whatever weapons of self defense you can legally and responsibly use, and move away from the suspected psychopath as fact as you can! And stop wsting possibly life-saving time asking non-experts for non-help!μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC) I normalized the font size in your post and hope you don't mind. Good advice does not become better by shouting. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 16

Are there ANY colleges in the world with bidet-seats in the restrooms?

A bidet-integrated toilet seat, also known as Washlets, bidet-seats, and Kohler Numis too, depending on branding, region, etc.

I haven't seen a college that has toilets with those futuristic amenities. Would anyone happen to know offhand? If so, would you please back it up with photo links? Thanks. --70.179.165.67 (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. We've been having a chat over at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk about questions that are probably US-centric (in this case in use of language), but we can't be sure. There's also another chat up above (under July 13) discussing what a college is. To constructively answer this question, we really need more information. For starters, what do you mean by college? HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would start with Japan and France.AerobicFox (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do we have pictures? --70.179.165.67 (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: a perusal of the OP's contribs shows a pattern that looks a lot like trolling. Looie496 (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree there. Uninformed possibly but I'm not convinced they aren't bona fide. HominidMachinae (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suspect naive, an insular background, but learning, not trolling. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the analysis, doc. Do me! 188.222.102.201 (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Washlets and comparable devices are expensive and would be vulnerable to misuse and vandalism that is common in public facilities. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rare or non-existent in French educational establishments. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the query is a bit ambigous. Does it refer to the school building themselves or to campus housing? Manual bidets are common places across Arab world, and housing of decent standard is likely to have one. Slightly less likely in public bathrooms. The integrated bidet I've only seen once though. It isn't very futuristic to be honest (in this case it was definately not new), rather impractical compared to manual bidets. --Soman (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

heraldry

I just came from the 'Left Handedness' page and jumped to the 'Heraldry' page, and noted that I can find no reference to the Left side of an Heraldic shield being called the 'Sinister' side, and the right side being the 'Dexter' side. is this out of use now? or just an omission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.208.215 (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly an omission, since this is indeed still the standard heraldic terminology, although it might be translated to 'left' and 'right' for the benefit of those unversed in blazonry. Of course, it's important to remember (as the OP doubtless knows but others reading this RefDesk may not) that the left and right in question are those of the person notionally holding/wearing the shield/helm/whatever, who is normally facing the beholder, so for a depiction on the page (for example) the 'Sinister' side is on the right as the reader looks at it and the 'Dexter' is on the left. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.152 (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We even have an article: Dexter and sinister. When I get a chance, it shouldn't be to difficult to put a link from the Heraldry page to it - unless somebody beats me to it! Alansplodge (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now inserted in Heraldry#Marshalling. Alansplodge (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historical technology and world regions

Many centuries ago the technology of the Chinese and the East was better than that of Europe. 1) When was the last date at which they were roughly equal? 2) Why did eastern technology stagnate while European technology went roaring ahead? 92.24.138.48 (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant article on this is Great Divergence. The general consensus is that Europe and China were roughly equal until the late 17th century (the decades running up to 1700 or so).

There are a lot of theories about why. IMO the most compelling one is that in China was in a high level equilibrium trap — it had things too good for too long. There was a relatively higher degree of political homogeneity in 16th and 17th China than in Europe — less war, less strife, fewer political entities competing for resources and power. Many of the technological, financial, and political revolutions in Europe in the 17th-18th centuries (all of which were very much connected to each other — you can't separate the technology out as an independent variable) happened because it was a period of great uncertainty, fear, and need for innovation. The financial revolution happened because England and the Netherlands couldn't compete against the raw resources of Louis XIV; the political revolutions came out of the endless wars over religion in Europe; the technological revolutions happened in part because of various schemes for financing such developments by the state, and the creation and fostering of institutions (e.g. the Royal Society, private enterprises) that could evaluate and disseminate such information. I'm not sure you have anything comparable in China at that period. This explanation simplifies things a bit, perhaps to a dangerous degree, but I do think it has an inkling of plausibility to it, with regards at least to why Europe ended up the way it did, if not completely explaining why China didn't go on a different path. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Median-average world standard of living

What is the current median-average standard of living for the world? As well as income, what material things does a world median standard of living give, such as having electricity, piped water, etc? Has the median standard of living changed much since the start of the 20th. century or more recently? 92.28.255.228 (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standard of living is not a number, so it does not have a median. If you focus on something that is a number, such as income, the finding will be that the median is very low, because of the huge numbers of very poor people in countries like India, Pakistan, China, and sub-Saharan Africa. Looie496 (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be a number to have a median, it just needs to be ordered. As long as you can come up with a definition that allows you to look at two people and say which of them has the higher standard of living, then there is a well-defined median. There is no single accepted way of saying who has a higher standard of living than who, but there are numerous attempts at doing so. Income, measured by purchasing power parity, is one simple way of doing it. According to our article, Poverty, the World Bank estimated that 2.7 billion people were living on less than $2 a day in 2001. The world population was just over 6 billion then, so that was almost half. That puts median income at just over $2/day. It's a little difficult to convert that to standard of living, since some people have very little money but still live fairly well because they grow their own food, but I think it's clear that the median standard of living is going to be pretty low. --Tango (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Development Index is a composite metric that measures human development, which is not necessarily the same as standard of living or quality of life, but may approximate it. It is on a scale from zero to one. Neutrality^talk 18:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to bits I've found around the web, a majority of the world's households have access to both electricity and running water (though large minorities lack either or both). Based purely on anecdotal experience traveling on different continents, I think the median standard of living involves manual labor, travel on bicycle, on foot, or by bus, starchy food and little meat to eat, and television in the evening. Marco polo (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What then would be the median average country in the world, in terms of standard of living? It would be nice to be able to get an idea of what conditions the median average human lives in in 2011 and before. 92.24.179.33 (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume "median average country" means you calculate the average standard of living within a country, and take the median of all countries. There is no such thing as the median average person, although you could take the median of all people within the median average country, which would be the median-median-average person-country. I really think if you just want a feel for what a typical person is going through, Marco Polo's answer is the best, since he has experience in this field, and has been giving reliable answers for a long time on subjects like this. I'm curious about them having tv in the evening - do I suppose it's most probably a small box in the living room, frequently going on the blink, permanently tuned to soapies? It's been emotional (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should prefer a well referenced answer... My answer shows that the median person is probably on a little over $2/day, so let's see what that really means. A little googling finds this article which says that someone living on $2/day in rural India (which is probably reasonably representative) can easily feed and clothe themselves and their family, but struggles for clean water, good education and healthcare. It doesn't mention electricity. This site says 78.9% of the world has access to electricity. Since that is over 50%, we would expect the median person to have it (it seems likely that access to electricity is correlated fairly strongly with standard of living). If they have electricity, there's a reasonably chance they have television. --Tango (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not to have linked all the sites that I looked at. According to this site, the global median income is $2.33 a day. Now, a caution about this figure is that it does not take into account the food that people grow for themselves or the services they exchange with others without exchanging money. Especially in poor countries and in poor households, a fair percentage of economic activity takes place outside of the cash economy. A second factor to consider is that a majority of the world's population now lives in urban areas. So the "median" person would live in a poor neighborhood, probably on the growing outskirts of one of the developing world's cities. In these places access to electricity and running water is less difficult than in poor rural areas (which is one reason why rural populations are migrating to cities). Marco polo (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it would be better or worse than living in one of the favelas in Rio, Brazil? They have been shown on tv, so I find them easier to picture. I imagine that other shanty towns around the world are similar. 2.97.209.26 (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10th anniversary of 9/11

What events are being planned, in New York City and elsewhere in the United States, to mark the 10th anniversary of 9/11? Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks only mentions the unveiling of a new memorial in New Jersey. I feel sure there must be more planned than this. Thanks, --Viennese Waltz 21:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A list can be found here. Perhaps someone could add them to the WP page? Alansplodge (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MILITARY

What country has the strongest militaryLadiloni (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The United States, by a huge margin. Looie496 (talk)

The US accounts for about 43% of total worldwide military expenditures: List of countries by military expenditures. (See also List of countries by level of military equipment). China, though, has the highest number of active duty troops: List of countries by number of troops. WikiDao ☯ 22:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is the US spending 43% of the world's war budget related to the US being broke? Edison (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cause and effect? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah... while the US military budget is disproportionately large in comparison to the rest of the world, that has little to do with the debt. Even if the US completely shut down its military, it would still be going broke. To put some numbers on this... according to our article on the Military budget of the United States the US allocated $663.8 billion for the military. According to our article on the United States public debt is $14.46 trillion. To translate this into amounts we can all understand, let's knock off a few zeros.... say the US owes its credit card company $14.46 (fourteen dollars and forty six cents). Cutting the military will save $0.66 ... If the US applies this savings to the debt, the US would now owe $13.80. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little more complicated than that. First, we're talking about historical trends here, and indeed, military spending is a huge reason behind the current level of debt. That doesn't necessarily mean that getting rid of it tomorrow will end the debt tomorrow, any more than it means cutting up an existing credit card destroys the debt you've put on that card previously. Second, the defense budget does represent a significant percentage of the total budget. (A nice visualization here.) Again, it's not everything, but it's a pretty significant hunk — money that is not going to pay back past debts, money that is increasing rather than decreasing the deficit. So no, nobody is saying that if you got rid of defense tomorrow, you'd end the debt. But I think a lot of people are saying that US defense spending has made and continues to make a serious contribution to the level of debt the country is in. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... I was mostly responding to Andy's comment about "cause and effect". The wars the US has been fighting over the last 10 years have certainly contributed to the debt... but so has entitlement spending, the loss of revenue due to the recession, and a host of other (arguably more significant) factors. Blueboar (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are comparing an annual figure to a cumulative figure, which makes no sense. You don't want to compare defence spending to the debt, you want to compare it to the deficit. The US deficit is currently about $1.5tn, so completely eliminating defence spending would cut the deficit by more than a third. There is no need for a country to pay off its debts, really. The figure economists usually look at is debt as a percentage of GDP, so if a country can grow its economy faster than its debt grows, then it is doing well. Halving the deficit would go a long way to allowing the US to reach that goal (although it wouldn't be enough - a deficit of $0.9tn or so would still grow the debt by about 6% a year, which would be a very optimistic economic growth forecast). --Tango (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note I put a question mark at the end of my earlier post - though it did seem to be an obvious response. Clearly, military expenditure isn't the only reason for the level of debt, but it is nevertheless a significant contributing factor - and one that has been a drain on the U.S. economy for some considerable time. It is a mistake to just look at it in terms of 'wars the U.S. has been fighting over the last 10 years' though, because much of it has been due to being spent preparing for wars that have never been fought - often indeed, in preparation for 'wars' with an enemy that doesn't exist. The 'Military-Industrial Complex' (lovely phrase) has a long history of inventing imaginary foes to 'justify' expenditue of huge sums of taxpayers money on technology that turns out to be utterly useless by the time it is developed. Still, the U.S. can take comfort in the fact that it isn't alone in this - the UK is currently building two new aircraft carriers, for which we won't have any aircraft! Somehow, this lunacy is described as 'defence' expenditure. I suspect one reason why goverments are so keen to spend money on such projects is the sense of importance it gives the politicians - rather than arguing with low-grade civil servants over the paper-clip budget, they get to be shown round shiny new hardware, and saluted by an Admiral. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, there are enemies that really do exist (remember 9/11?)... so, realistically, the US is not about to get rid of all defense spending. That does not mean it can't (or shouldn't) spend its defense budget more wisely... but it is going to have to have a military budget. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the original question, while the United States probably still has the world's strongest military, it's not clear that it is the strongest by "a huge margin". Certainly, its military spending is the highest by a huge margin, but adjusted for purchasing power parity the US military spending has less of a margin over Chinese military spending, which is rising rapidly. It is appropriate to use purchasing power parity for this comparison, because Chinese wages and wholesale prices for comparable manufactured goods are considerably lower than US wages and prices for goods manufactured in the United States (as US military materiel overwhelmingly is). Purchasing power parity, if anything, probably understates relative prices, since prices for materiel sourced from US defense contractors are skewed upward by a lack of competitive bidding, politically awarded padded contracts, and very high wages for engineers and executives in defense contracting firms. Finally, Chinese military spending has been growing more rapidly than that of the US, as has the technological sophistication of Chinese military hardware. Therefore, while the US almost certainly retains a lead over China militarily, that lead is frequently overstated and steadily shrinking. Marco polo (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Marco polo to some extent, but while the Chinese are rapidly expanding their armed forces they are still a great distance from the US in terms of power projection. Currently China possesses almost no ability to engage in warfare outside of its own borders. Its last military adventure (against Vietnam, a much smaller nation) being a pretty serious disaster. This list is very telling regarding power projection parity: List of aircraft carriers by country. Operating and defending an aircraft carrier in hostile waters is enormously expensive and complex, it is also a required if a nation is to use its armed forces outside of its immediate sphere. --Daniel 22:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

was it an american war

who fought the spanish inquisition — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoamchtoothMMX (talk • contribs) 22:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish Inquisition was not a war. Looie496 (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nor were any Americans involved in it. Except perhaps that the Spanish church's virulent attitude to all who fell short of its standards also applied to the native people of the New World, who were abominably treated. This could be thought of as an extension of the Inquisition. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I can no longer see a question like this without thinking of the Monty Python version. Looie496 (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are looking for the Spanish-American War? 80.187.151.104 (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 17

Lips on Characters in Japanese Manga/Anime

I was discussing Japanese manga and anime with a friend and he asked me a question. He said he'd noticed that bad guys tend to have huge lips, then asked me why. I do admit, I had seen them before many a time, but never really thought to ask anyone. Does anyone know? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume it is just convention... so readers know "this is a bad guy". Similar to the old Hollywood convention of bad guys in westerns wear black hats. Blueboar (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Japanese people generally do not have thick lips, compare this with this. There is nothing new about demeaning stereotypes. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image verifications

Can anybody tell me if this image called Queen Kapiolani's House is the exact same image as Ainahau - Kaiulani's House.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking. They're different photographs of what appears to be the same house. APL (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm guessing. They look the same so the book that I got the first image from is wrong in identifying the occupant of the house.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody decipher what this image is saying? I get some of it but can't read the handwriting very well. Also is it an authentic signature?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you've got most of it already on the image page. The first line says "I was sick and ye visited me." --Viennese Waltz 08:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ye? Really? What is the letter before Damien and the loop in between Damien and Veuster

The letter before Damien is almost certainly a J. As our article says, his given name was Jozef. Not sure about the other one. --Viennese Waltz 08:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like "I was Sick and ye visited me / J Damien "*" Veuster / Kalavao Moolokai Dec, 20th 1888" to me. The "*" might be @ or & or a letter like D or L or E. 92.24.130.36 (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks exactly like the "d" on the line above. Father Damien says he was original "Jozef De Veuster". (The source quotes for his original name spells it "de Veuster")., --ColinFine (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also can someone tell me what the faded print in this image say?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is art in paint?

why is art in paint cant it be with pople love — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.84.130.182 (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added a title. I think the OP means: "Why is art in paint? Why cannot it be with people's love?" 92.24.130.36 (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple songs, poems, and written works, including a 3 volume poem by Ovid, on "The Art of Love." Love seems to be more an artform than a scientific or engineering area. ("Introductory engineering principles of love, with differential equations?" I think not. Edison (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of the question is that art allegedly cannot be "with pople love". Citation required. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is: Why is art made with paint—can't art be made with people's love? In other words—why can't the "material" that art is made with be people's love? Or, to state it again—can't love be the material of art? Bus stop (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ovid says it can be. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh sentence because of Royal connection?

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14150800 1) Am I correct in thinking that if Mr and Mrs Bloggs had been in the nearby car, and not Mr and Mrs Windsor, then he would have only have got a few weeks of Community Service? 2) What other crimes would get a sixteen month prison sentence? 92.24.130.36 (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking and entering? Theft? According to the article, the guy also kicked in a store window and stole a mannequin leg. Blueboar (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A key factor in sentencing is the convict's previous criminal record. The couple of articles I've just skimmed don't mention whether he has a previous criminal record or not, but if he does then that could easily explain the severity of the sentence. --Tango (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only an opinion but a major factor was that he climbed up the The Cenotaph which didnt go down well with the general public rather than the royal connection, He claimed he had not realised the significance of the memorial - an excuse the judge rejected. MilborneOne (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An understandable rejection: this muggins does study history at Cambridge. I doubt being off his face on acid and Valium held much clout as an excuse. A comparable case is that of student Philip Laing, who was hauled up in front of a judge in 2009 for urinating against a war memorial while drunk. According to our article, outraging public decency can carry an unlimited custodial sentence or unlimited fine. Brammers (talk/c) 15:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why was he protesting college fees actually? Money should not been an issue here....

I'm tempted to wonder how long it will be before the judge is knighted for services to Royalty. (Hope airing that thought won't bring the judicial mallet down on me). 2.101.4.118 (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking is free and neither necessarily "correct" nor "incorrect", but the OP's thought no. 1) can only be speculation. Having only the linked article to go on, I find the judge's expressed outrage at Gilmour's disrespect of war dead disproportionate to his mild acceptance that Gilmour's behaviour was not part of violent disorder. Man doses self into inebriated frenzy on mixture of alcohol, valium and illegal narcotic and goes on rampage of destruction, theft, vandalism and attempted assault seems to sum it up. The sentence of 16 months housing at Her Majesty's expense is unremarkable but a more economical and effective lesson would be that practised in Singapore, as can be attested by Michael P. Fay whose bottom may help him think twice before vandalising cars again. Add strokes for Gilmour because his hair is too long, doubtless some new pop fad that will go over. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the accused had read our article on The Cenotaph, Whitehall, he might indeed have been unaware that it is our national war memorial, because it doesn't actually mention the fact. Alansplodge (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guilty Gilmour could read the dates of WW1 and WW2 plus "The Glorious Dead" on the memorial. Uniformed service personnel salute the Cenotaph every year on Remembrance Sunday, a ceremony televised each year by the BBC since 1946. WP:DUCK. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. My comment was a tongue-in-cheek of saying that the intro to the page doesn't point out what it's for. Alansplodge (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military personnel in uniform salute the Cenotaph every time they pass it. Not just once a year.

ALR (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's an element of "pour encourager les autres" about it. It doesn't matter how much money one has, by the way, it is possible to feel solidarity with people whose life experiences are not yours! --TammyMoet (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to (1) is a definite "no". He pleaded guilty to violent disorder, which almost always results in a lengthy custodial sentence. (It's the next step down from riot in the catalogue of English public order offences.) A sentence of 32 months was given to Edward Woollard - the 18-year-old who threw a fire extinguisher off a building - for the same offence. The answer to (2) is extremely broad, as all sorts of offences might merit a sentence of that length, when the circumstances of the offence and the history of the offender are taken into account. But as a guide, you could look at various sentencing guidelines to get a basic idea. (Bear in mind that offenders receive a discount for a guilty plea, so Mr Gilmour's sentence of 16 months reflects a notional sentence after a trial of about 2 years.) Proteus (Talk) 18:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought plea bargaining didn't happen in the UK? It was proposed recently by Kenneth Clarke, but because of public opinion being against it, was dropped by David Cameron. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a plea bargain, it's a pretty much automatic discount for anyone who pleads guilty. The earlier you plead guilty, the more discount you get (a third for a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity down to a tenth for a guilty plea on the day of trial; in fact there's a guideline specifically addressing the various levels on the page I linked to earlier). What was proposed by Ken Clarke was an increase in the greatest discount from a third to a half, and it was that that caused a public outcry (mainly, it would seem, from people who didn't realise that it was a proposed alteration to a system that already exists rather than a brand new policy - as usual, the British media's reporting on the criminal justice system was absolutely useless). Proteus (Talk) 20:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recall a woman was prosecuted for urinating on a war memorial recently. How long did she get? 2.97.209.26 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toirdhealbhach Luineach Mac Neill Chonnalaigh O Neill

I have been looking through the relevant articles and cannot seem to work out where this one man came from. He is called a cousin of Hugh O'Neill, which would make him a grandson of Conn O'Neill, unless in this case cousin is used to refer to any more distant relative as well. However, this would make him quite a bit older than cousin Hugh, whose father is stated to be rather older than his own brother Shane O'Neill. Whilst the ages can sort of work, I am left wondering whether this is because either, the two men are not cousins, but instead uncle and nephew or second cousins or some such, or whether Hugh's father was quite old on having his son, or any other possibility. Oh yes, and two different articles give his date of abdication as 1593 and 1595, any ideas which is right?

79.66.110.165 (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found Turlough Luineach O'Neill; would you please link to or cite the other article to which you refer? 99.24.223.58 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morality of religion

Is teaching children from a young age that religion is fact a type of brainwashing and indoctrination? As a young boy i used to attend sunday school. While there we were told all of these fantastic things about biblical figures and events such as the parting of the red sea and jesus walking on water. And as children everybody in the class was really excited and saying "wow did that really happen". And not once did our teacher say no its never been proven to have happened. Surely this is brainwashing of the worst kind and children should be left to make up their own mind? Just wondered if I'd gotten the wrong end of the stick or if others agree with me. But if you tell a child something for long enough then it sticks in their head. --Thanks, Hadseys 19:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is teaching children what you do not believe yourself "brainwashing", but teaching children what you do believe to be not brainwashing. You seem to be treating the situation as if your own personal moral standards are somehow "the right ones", and if people teach their own children some moral standard different from your own, it must be "brainwashing". That seems rather self-centered and prejudicial, no? --Jayron32 19:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you brought that up, as teaching children about things to do with their own culture (including religion) is part of their training in understanding that there's more to their world than just themselves. All education is "indoctrination" to some extent. If the OP doesn't want to get into a specific religion, maybe he could instead teach his kids about the cultural importance of religions: a common bond among people, with shared moral values, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Telling children things are fact when actually they are belief is what the OP seem to be complaining about. Teaching science, if done properly, involves explaining the evidence and uncertainty. That's the big difference between education and indoctrination. --Tango (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To indoctrinate is "to teach with a biased, one-sided or uncritical ideology". To the extent that biblical and other legendary stories diverge from scientific fact or can't even be confirmed by historical sources, but are taught regardless, because they are believed to be the truth, they're indoctrination. Yet the word "indoctrinate" is usually only used of communists and their ilk, those who are on the "wrong side" of the ideological fence. The North Koreans' position that there is no God is no more or less scientifically provable than the West's position that there is one, yet one is indoctrination and the other is teaching our children decent Christian values. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Communism's gods in general are Marx, Lenin, Mao, et al. North Korea's current god is Kim Jong-il. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In short, religion does get many exceptions from standards in general, it's just the way it is. It's a cultural thing. I've always mused, for instance, that teaching children that there's a boogieman under their bed that will kill them if they don't eat their peas would likely be mental abuse, even if it doesn't rise to the level that you could be arrested for it. On the other hand teaching children that if they disrespect their parents they'll be sent to a giant lake of fire to burn for all eternity that's considered not abuse, but a virtue. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even forgetting that fire and brimstone stuff, what about Santa Claus? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have to be mindful of the mixed message. Parents are more than capable of enrolling children in religious education and simultaneously communicating to them verbally or nonverbally, explicitly or implicitly, that the religious learning they will receive there is not the whole truth. Bus stop (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP might be interested in this clip. Belief in the immorality of religion - or, at least, the immorality of indoctrinating children in the unverified and unverifiable truth of religious beliefs - is commonplace among secular humanists. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secular humanism and atheism are also quasi-religious systems. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite. But, is this really the place for this debate? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are worse kinds of brainwashing. Taken as memes, religious superstitions are parasitic on human beings, but religious hygiene doctrine is in symbiosis. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? I don't understand the whole sentence. Bus stop (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand the memetics article? Memes are ideas viewed as life forms. False superstitions are preying on human beings to various extents, but religious doctrines about not eating pork, for example, helped the Middle East avoid trichinosis. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psych wards

I'm sure they are not like in One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest , and that the tendency is to put a non-dangerous (to himself or to others) patient into outpatient wards, but what is true about psych wards of films? Do they mix patients with unrelated mental illnesses? Do they hang out together in a common room all day long? Are they not allowed to go out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.79.148 (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "outpatient wards." If you are into outpatient care, you are not in a ward. The article Psychiatric_hospital#Types gives you an outlook, depending on the patient. Quest09 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assistive care facilities, often called halfway houses ideally tailor each patient's treatment regime to their individual needs. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]