Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 14

How are aerial victories recorded?

How are aerial victories in wars documented and how are aces recognised? Presumably nobody would be out in the sky watching an aerial battle to see who shoots down who. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The pilots would report back. They would report if they know they hit someone and if they saw the plane they hit go down. Other pilots would report what they saw as well. It wasn't an exact science, but they tried to keep track of how many planes they shot down because that gave them an idea of how many the enemy still had left. It also allowed for some healthy competition between pilots and some useful propaganda. --Tango (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

After 1920 or so planes were equipped with gun cameras, which, while often ambiguous, could provide evidence as well as a means of improving tactics and gaining intelligence on new airplane types. Acroterion (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

See Flying ace for a description of how different countries counted victories: solo vs. shared vs. group, in the air vs. on the ground, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ground observers would be another source. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia and calendars

On the main page today (Dec 14) we have mention of an earthquake in Constantinople in 557. How do early wikipedia dates work? Are they Julian, Gregorian extrapolated backwards, local calendar or what? In other words, did the earthquake occur 7 or 8 days before the winter solstice (Gregorian) or about 9 days before solstice (Julian) or ...? Also is whatever happened in this specific case a common standard (intended) across all articles? I saw nothing addressing this in Gregorian calendar. -- SGBailey (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

See WP:DATES#Calendars. It goes over the guideline that I think you're looking for. Dismas|^(talk) 11:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I often wondered about this and I would convert to modern date. But, Dismas, this is brilliant, using the contempory date means that the date published in contempory sources is always right even if the calendar changes in the future.
Sleigh (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not really necessary to convert to a modern date unless the calendar changed during the person's lifetime (even then I suppose it may not be totally necessary, but that is often done for people who lived in 18th century England, at least). We're not calibrating a time machine here, so it's not too important if "our" December 14 matches up with "their" December 14. In this case the date comes from Agathias, but our article on the earthquake is a little vague, and I can't view the specific page on Google or Amazon so I'm not sure what exactly Agathias says. (It's page 137, if anyone else can see it.) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh nevermind, I can see it now, and our article just repeats what Agathias says, i.e. he doesn't give a Julian calendar date. But I see that Frendo, the English translator, notes that the date was between December 14-23, not the 14th specifically. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, a date "extrapolated backward" to before the calendar in question existed is called a "proleptic" date. - Nunh-huh 14:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Whereas, the date is always the right, the year may still need to be converted and this introduces errors. Some medieval dates from 1 January to 24 March may need to be converted from the contempory published date. If the date needs to be converted, the year needs to be incremented by one. So, if a date has not been converted (for a date before 25 March) then an error occurs where the date is exactly one year too early. And if a date is converted but doesn't need to be because the start of year was taken a 1 January contemporarily then an error occurs where the date is exactly one year too late. If a date is converted but it has already been converted, the double-conversion error, then the date is exactly one year too late.
Sleigh (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sleigh, if that is in response to "proleptic date", I need to explain what a proleptic date is again. A proleptic date is one given in a calendar for a date before the calendar existed. For example, a date in 1500 given as if the Gregorian calendar had then been in force (which it wasn't). It sounds like you are thinking of Old Style and New Style dates, which generally only affect dates between 1 January and 25 March. - Nunh-huh 18:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- SGBailey (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

UK Pension Pot

Apologies if this is in the wrong category. My wife and I are both retired UK Civil Servants in our early 60's, and we are fortunate enough to have earned index-linked occupational pensions equal to about half of our previous salaries, tied to an annual increase equivalent to the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) (this year that will be 5.2% - though that is unrepresentatively high). In addition, we are both in receipt of our state-pensions and other state-provided supplements, again index-linked to CPI. Altogether that amounts to some £30,000 per annum, tax-paid. Does anyone have an idea of how much of a pension pot we would have needed to accumulate in order to provide us with that annual index-linked sum for the rest of our actuarially calculated lives? BTW, we are both relatively fit and well with family backgrounds of relatively healthy longevity. I am not asking for exactitude here - merely a roughly indicative guesstimate. Thanks folks. 62.30.176.76 (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

According to http://www.pensioncalculator.com/ if you started saving for a Pension at 20 and wanted to retired at 65 on £15,000 per annum you'd need to contribute about £127 per month and build up a pot valued at around £330k. So that's be about 660k for both of you. the calculation above will be a gross simplification (give the complexities of pensions and annuities) but I guess it's reasonable to suggest that to get around £30k a year in pension payments you'd need a fair bit over 0.5m in the pot. Finally (and I assume you know the logic but just incase) your relative healthiness/family backgrounds would mean you'd like get a lower annuity payment than an unhealthy person with an unfortunate family history. ny156uk (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks NY. I appreciate your efforts in providing that info. Next time you see me in a bar, let me buy you a pension-provided Pint. Thanks again. Jim. 62.30.176.76 (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

With gilt yields (interest on government debt) so low at the moment (due to a combination of investors wanting it as a safe haven and quantitative easing) annuities are extremely expensive. It depends on the assumptions you use, but you need about £30 to buy a £1 p.a. index-linked annuity from an insurance company at the moment (maybe as much as £35-40). That means you would be looking at close to a million pounds, at least, to buy the pensions you currently have. Now you can understand why people call civil service pensions "gold plated"! (Apologies for the lack of references - I do this stuff for a living, so I'm just basing it on the numbers I've seen at work of the last couple of months.) --Tango (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, given the amount of political dicking about I've seen in relation to consumer price series and their politicised recalculation in order to stuff around indexed benefits, I wouldn't trust a CPI linked indexed pension any more than I'd trust a government not to try to fuck over unionised government employees. (My opinions are those of a historian who concentrates on class warfare issues, so with a time horizon of 40 years, I wouldn't trust a state to run a chook raffle unless there was a chicken raffle workers union with the power to make and break governments. Your time horizon, perception of risk of state action, and individual pension plan's susceptibility to abuse by state power may vary.) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally the question assumes a pot. Government employers don't have one, they fund the pensions from pension contributions made by other people later on. Private employers create a pot with eg an insurance company and hope it will increase over time. Other employers do a Robert Maxwell. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The rules were changed after the Maxwell incident - UK pension schemes are much better regulated now. --Tango (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Only partially true, some public sector professions do have investment funded pensions, others are revenue funded. That said, someone describing themselves as a "civil servant" is likely to be on a revenue funded scheme.

When one retired in the revenue funded schemes it is translated into a representative value and that's also used for other purposes. I know when I divorced my military pension had to be valued as part of the settlement.

That said, if one assumes that one is about to get screwed ver by politicians one can't go far wrong.

ALR (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wad Hijam in Sudan

Hi,

I don't find any mention anywhere (not even here) about Wad Hijam, except on this page, which only mentions "the village of Wad Hijam, 50 km (31 miles) west of Buram". Is a detailed map of the region available somewhere? Perhaps there is another spelling for the name of this place?

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well... it's a remote village in a notoriously unstable country with a lot of (often mutually hostile) ethnic groups that are nomadic, exacerbated by refugee flights from the civil war and ethnic clashes. There are numerous such villages destroyed in the recent years, it's doubtful you can get any more information other than its name and its rough location.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be commonly called Wad Hajam or Wad Hagam; in fact "Wad Hijam" may be a typo at your link. This article has an account of the Dec. 2008 events there and calls it Wad Hajam; this pdf apparently describes the same incident and spells the village name Wad Hagam. Wad Hagam is the name of a decent-sized district west of Buram, presumably where the village is located, with maps available by googling "Wad Hagam," but I haven't been able to find a map showing the actual village.--Cam (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It may simply be a difficulty in transliterating Arabic script. I found several other sources spelling it Wad Hajjam, Wad El Hajjam, and Wad al-Ugam. I also suspect that the UN reporting bodies may have mistakenly attributed the name of the locality to the village name. This is the most detailed map of South Darfur that I can find. While it outlines the Wad al-Ugam region, it does not show any villages by the same name, nor does it list one.

This report (while seemingly also referring to the village of Wad Hajam) hints that the village may actually be named "Gueigh". And the closest village by that name in the previously linked map is Gueighin (also spelled Goweighin). And it fits the descriptions perfectly. It's 50km almost directly west of the town of Buram, is within Wad al-Ugam (Habaniya territory), and near Tullus (Falata territory).-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Being easily offended

Why are some people so easily offended and how can that be reversed? Some people get offended if you explain them something that they already know, if you ask something they don't don't, if you disagree with something, if you deny a favour, if you dislike something they love and more, much more.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.16.11 (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but when you find out please let me know, as I work with a person exactly like this. You have described her to a tee. Her first line of defence (because it's all about ego-defence mechanisms) is to at least doubt whatever you say about anything, if not outright denying it. When she tries to be polite, she will query why you're saying it, and is always surprised when there's a good explanation. She's also a lot deafer than she is ever prepared to admit, and I suspect she's struggling with that issue, but that wouldn't apply to everyone who's like this. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Human social behavior, like that of other social species, involves dominance hierarchies. Anger is the natural response to interactions that challenge one's position in the hierarchy -- that is, anger is the response to actions that are perceived as disrespectful. Looie496 (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it's cause people are pretty bloody pathetic, as a whole. Egg Centric 19:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Offensiveness is socially contextualised. I can say something to a speaker of Australian English and be considered intimate and friendly, where saying the same thing to a speaker of Indian English would result in my being considered grossly offensive. If your work, political party, union, church, community group or protest movement is taking offence at things you think are fine, you'll need to slowly change the culture of that social group. For an example of a cultural environment where people like being corrected on things they didn't know, consider the ideal University. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you called someone from India a bastard and didn't get the reaction you'd expect in Aussieland. StuRat (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I grew up knowing that India has a different conception of language intimacy, and speakers of Indian English use a different code, so I knew not to call them bastards or something even more intimate. On the other hand, my experience with United Statesers other than Marines has been more patchy. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I hate to think of your conception of Americans, based solely on Marines. StuRat (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's probably no worse than being based on American tourists overseas, or high-profile politicians, or congregation-loving tele-evangelists, or film and TV actors. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 17:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Some advice:

1) Pick your battles. That is, don't correct such a person when it really doesn't matter.

2) Apologize when you explain something they already knew.

3) Stroke their egos, say by asking them to explain something they know (even if you really already know the answer).

4) If all else fails, limit your time with them. StuRat (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. Just as people can be easily offended, so too can people easily offend. The devil is in the details. Bus stop (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Some people will definitely get offended by 3, since they'll think you are testing them. 4 always works, but sometimes can not be implemented. 88.8.78.13 (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Number 2 is OK if peace at any price is your thing. If not, why should you apologise for their tetchiness just because you told them something you didn't know they already knew? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The key thing to understand is that being offended is a choice. If you are looking for ways to help people make better choices, good luck.Greg Bard (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Greg - I agree with you that being offended is a choice, but many people do not know this, or (more neutrally put) would not agree with this: they believe that the offence was given them by others, and their reaction is unchosen and inevitable. My take is that

• We do not have the power to control others' reactions to what we do or say
• But we can choose our actions to make others' responses more or less likely to be agreeable to us
• The better we know the people, the more effective such choices will be; but they will never be 100%.

Pretty obvious stuff, I know. --ColinFine (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

For the OP, I've never quite experienced this on an ongoing basis, but at a previous workplace, I had a lot of little problems with a small but significant number of people, basically a bunch of ravening individualists in a sales environment. In several cases, I brought it up with the manager, and nothing happened. I can only draw the conclusion that they had already made a rational choice about what they could get away with, and decided to act accordingly. Perhaps my failure to confront them personally about their behaviour was the real problem. I'm assuming the person is a work colleague, otherwise you would avoid them, so my own experience suggests you will have to tell the person quietly and directly that their behaviour stands out from the norm, and is causing you problems. If you can also mention something you like about them, and do it all good-humouredly, you might stand a better chance, but my own experience has been bad with these things. On those other occasions when I have confronted a problem, and done so with the person concerned, it has usually worked out ok, but I have only chosen to deal with such situations when I knew there was an adult intelligence at the other end. IBE (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There are people other than coworkers who can't be avoided. There's family, clients/customers/business contacts, and also spouses/romantic interests. Why would someone choose to be romantically linked to such an annoying person ? Presumably they bring other things to the table which outweigh this annoyance. They might be a good provider, take care of the house or kids, etc. In the sitcom The King of Queens, fat Doug explicitly acknowledged that the only reason he could get pretty Carrie is her bad personality, which drove others away. StuRat (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Apart from Egocentrism, I found Borderline personality disorder and Narcissistic personality disorder informative. Manytexts (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

December 15

Animal representations of countries

Various countries have animals that are culturally or politically associated with them. For instance, China has the dragon, Russia has the bear, and the U.S. has the eagle. Is there an animal that is associated with Israel (or Judaism in general)? I initially guessed a lamb, but that is Christianity. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The scapegoat? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

National symbols of Israel has both a bird and a breed of dog listed. No idea how well known or common those are as symbols. --Jayron32 03:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

To outsiders? Probably about as well-known as the |rose being the official flower of the USA (ie not well-known) --Dweller (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The coat of arms of Jerusalem depicts the Lion of Judah. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Re Israel, I don't believe so, but the Jewish answer is alluded to with Adam's response above. Each of the Twelve Tribes of Israel had its own symbol, many of which were animals. Today's Jews are mostly the descendants of the Kingdom of Judah - ie members of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi. Of those, Judah was numerically and politically by far the most significant, hence the name of the kingdom and hence the name of the Jews, according to many etymologists. So, the symbol of Judah, the lion, is not inappropriate as the animal associated with Judaism, but it's a stretch to bracket it with the examples you give, as it's not a generally used association. And, finally, whilst no-one knows if they're really members of Benjamin (symbol:wolf) or Judah, there are plenty who know themselves to be members of the tribe of Levi (symbol:High Priest's breastplate). --Dweller (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

At least in my personal experience as an American, the Lion of Judah is much more associated with Ethiopia (and The Ras Tafari) than with Israel. --M@rēino 16:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion is that the lion is a symbol of the religion, not the country. But in any case, even so, it's not an obvious association. Btw, I'm surprised no-one's said this yet, as well as the Star of David, the religion's prime symbol is of course the menorah. --Dweller (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

One comment on why Israel might not have a national animal: In their early history, ancient Israel fought against those who worshiped other gods, or other conceptions of their God, many of which were represented by animals, such as the golden calf. This may have left a bad taste in their mouths for animals as symbols. Of course, you might well argue that that was 3000 years ago, but Jews tend to have very long memories. StuRat (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The Lion of Judah appears on the Emblem of Jerusalem, but it's not particularly a symbol of Judaism as such. Distinctively Jewish symbols that were used on ancient Jewish coins were the menorah, the Four Species, the Ark of the covenant, etc. -- but not animals. The Star of David didn't become a distinctively Jewish symbol until the middle ages in Prague (even later elsewhere), and was apparently chosen for use as a Jewish community symbol partly exactly because it was not a traditional Jewish religious symbol... AnonMoos (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Military monuments in 18th century British India

The sculptor Charles Peart was responsible for at least two funerary sculptures or monuments in India, to British military figures, in the late 18th century. Peart had some family connections with the East India Company. Would it have been more likely, at that time, for him to have travelled to India to undertake the work, or would the work have been done in England and then shipped out to India? Informed responses, rather than guesses, would be especially welcome! Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The semi-notorious Kamehameha Statues were shipped all the way from Italy to Hawaii (though in the 19th century)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Generally, established artists of the time didn't travel long distances, especially not for single commissions. Travel was a slow, risky proposition, and (IIRC) a round trip to India would take a minimum of one year because of the distance (no Suez Canal) and prevailing winds. It's far more likely that he would have done the carving in his workshop in England and shipped the components to India for final assembly. --Carnildo (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - that was my working assumption. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In general, I'd agree with Carnildo. In the specific case, Peart has an entry in the ODNB ([1]), which doesn't explicitly mention a trip to India, and seems to strongly imply he remained in England throughout. Shimgray | talk | 22:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have access to the ODNB, so if you'd like to add anything to the article on him, please do. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

IQ test for research purposes

I am looking for an IQ test for use in research. How would I acquire one? Are there any public domain ones? The only ones I can seem to find cost $500 from Pearson Education. 174.124.82.77 (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It depends what you need the tests for. The original Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales were created in 1916, so they would be public domain, if you can find a copy somewhere (university library? I don't really know where to look). Obviously, no one is going to treat those results with any sort of validity though. To get a hold of a test that is considered valid pretty widely (like the most recent Stanford-Binet Intellegence Scales [2]), you're going to have to have some pretty good qualifications for administering such tests [3] (often a graduate degree in a related field), and yes, a pretty good chunk of change. Is this research through a University? The education department might be able to talk with you about how such an study should be run, and if it's possible to get tests for you to use, along with properly trained test administrators. Buddy431 (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Being created in 1916 does not equate with being public domain, so take care when using it. 88.8.78.13 (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Being published in 1916 would place it in the public domain. There is no copyright holder for this test.[4] Gx872op (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If the version the user will have at hand was published in 1916, then yes, it's public domain at the first sight. However, if the published test the user has at hand is newer, then no, he should take care, since comments, adapting, correcting a text can also be protected by a copyright. 88.8.78.13 (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Buddy431 was pretty clear about specifying the original 1916 test only, and pointed out its unreliability because of being so old. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course, whether this is in the public domain depends on the jurisdiction - as public domain points out, some works never go out of copyright in some countries, while some countries have very long copyright lengths. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Buddy431's recommendation shouldn't be followed without further care. As 130.88 points out, being in the public domain is much more complicated that what Buddy431 says and Mr.98 repeats. That's also why the Ref. Desk does not provide legal advice. 88.8.78.13 (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The OP's IP geolocates to the United States. The test was definitely published for the first time in 1916, in the United States. There is zero ambiguity about it. You're barking up the wrong tree. Copyright is complicated, but not as complicated as you are making it. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Geolocation isn't completely reliable - the OP might be using a proxy, or might only be in the US temporarily. Even if they are based in the US, it is possible that they might try to acquire a copy of the test from another country, or they might need to distribute it to people in other countries for the purposes of their research. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

IQ tests from the early 20th century are invalid for today's population and culture. It would be pretty much a waste of time to use a 1916 IQ test in research, other than in showing how the results differ from those of a more modern test. They assume things like an informed member of the public knowing that the iceman carries the block of ice up to put in your icebox using icetongs, rather than carrying it with his gloved hands. They might be useful for hiring antique dealers. Edison (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Normally you would get these from the academic department you work with (either directly, or through a grant for research). If you're not associated with an academic department currently, then you'll probably have to shell out the money and you're going to have some real publication issues (with highly culturally-sensitive topics like IQ, journals really want the protection offered an academic affiliation). Just sayin'… --Ludwigs2 16:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

December 16

Camila

The life and execution of Camila O'Gorman are recounted in a film, Camila. Apparently the firing squad was reluctant to shoot her and did not do so at the first command. At the end of the film, there is a note in French claiming that the members of the squad were themselves shot (passés pour les armes) for indiscipline.

Does anyone know whether that really happened? Our articles have no reference to it. --Trovatore (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This well-referenced article makes no mention of the firing squad refusing to obey or being shot for it. It does say they "in spite of the terror of punishment for disobedience, looked away from the corpse of the brave woman." Clarityfiend (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe the film took that tidbit and exaggerated it just a tiny bit. Thanks.

I'm having trouble reconstructing why the note was in French. The film was in Spanish and the subtitles were English, so it's weird. But I'm almost sure it was French. --Trovatore (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Bank and Credit Union

What are the similarities and differences between them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 03:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The Credit union article explains what it is and how it is different from other financial institutions. After you check there, feel free to come back with any specific questions. Bielle (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A bank rips you off to enrich it's executives and shareholders, while a credit union only rips you off to enrich it's execs. StuRat (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside that Sturat's comment is without references, in Canada, at least, to the extent that there are profits in a credit union, they are shared with the membership (a.k.a. "account holders"). That's what a co-operative is all about. (The rules vary from country to country.) Bielle (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thus the need to give all the execs lavish bonuses, to ensure that there are no profits they would need to share. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In the UK there are no execs in a credit union. It is a voluntary group run entirely by its members. It is run as a non-profit organisation, which means that no profits are distributed to any execs: they are all put back into the organisation and distributed to members. There are quite strict laws governing their operation. You (and StuRat) may like to investigate this site. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In the US, at least, profit isn't determined until after employees get paid, including exec bonuses. Do employees not get paid in the UK ? StuRat (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The senior managers are all volunteers. I have been looking and just seeing jobs like office manager at £8 per hour, which is hardly excessive. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The most reliable info I can find is here. Average salary for "Credit Union Manager" is £19,500. But then if I've read it right, it says that is based on less than five people. But then, it seems that credit unions don't employ many people anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In Australia, the Members and Education Credit Union was recently recognised as a bank. StAnselm (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

--Jessica A Bruno 19:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Thank you for all of your responses to my question here. All of this is interesting and will look into this further when I have a chance to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs)

Converting from musical notation to SI units

I was looking at the article on the Westminster Quarters for the tune. When I found it, I realized that it was in a form unsuitable for my purpose (programming a microcontroller to signal the time by sound). I looked at the E major article for more information, but it was equally unhelpful.

Instead of sharps and flats, minims and crotchets, I require hertz and milliseconds. Please point me to a conversion table. If none exists, one certainly ouget to be created and placed on Wikipedia. 75.35.96.138 (talk) 07:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you checked out "Piano key frequencies"? Gabbe (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That should help you with the frequencies. As to the timing: musical notation is about ratios, not absolute timings. Depending on how fast you want the piece to go, pick a length in milliseconds to be 'crochet'. All minims should be twice as long as this. All quavers (if you had any) should be half as long as the crochet length. All semibreves should twice as long as the minim length, so four times as long as the crochet length. If you decide the speed is wrong, you can adjust accordingly, keeping the ratios the same.

Of course, tuning is also really about ratios, not absolute pitch, but you can just stick in the standard modern piano frequencies. 86.164.79.174 (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to add: in this case, you need to know that a dotted minim is worth three crochets, so it will be three times your crochet length. 86.164.79.174 (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest getting the music in MIDI format. Each note tone is an integer. The duration of each note is set by a start and end time (also an integer). So, it helps normalize the music into something easier to use in research. You can read how I used it here. -- kainaw™ 13:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This probably won't help in this particular case, but musical scores frequently have a metronome mark, which gives the tempo in beats per minute - the number of a stated length of note (typically a crotchet) that fit into a minute - this is generally meant as a rough guide, though. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to be crotchety about it, but please note that crochet (kro-shay) is a technique for making fabrics, and crotchet is the musical note. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 17:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Zju-27, Zu-27 or Sic-27

I'm looking subject called sic-27, Zu-27 or Zju-27. Thank you in advance. Странник27 (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you give us any clue as to what those subjects are ? StuRat (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Could it be Sukhoi Su-27? — Kpalion^(talk) 19:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• I want to create an article with this name, so am looking for a subject about which i can write in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Странник27 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You've picked a title before you have a topic? Interesting. Best I can find is SIC 27 (the ever catchy "Evaluating the Substance of Transactions Involving the Legal Form of a Lease") in List of International Financial Reporting Standards#List of Interpretations. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Сan and Zu-27.

If you do this, the article will likely be deleted in short order as a non-notable topic. just so you know… --Ludwigs2 20:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• The fact of the matter is that we need an object with this or a similar name. For example military equipment to such abreavvituroy. Странник27 (talk) 09:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are looking for an existing article, the one Kpalion pointed to would seem to be a good fit. If you are intending to create an article having only the name in mind and not a subject, it is very unlikely that you would be able to create an acceptable article. --ColinFine (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that I want to create an article in Russian Wikipedia called Зю-27. We test the significance - the object reference in press. That is, this standard should be a separate article in the press. Write an article quoting party that satisfies the rules of the specific standard or, say, a specific article of cosmic rays Code - a very complicated matter. Only if the subject discussed in the press articles / scientific papers. (straight from the tin-type scandal law en: SOPA) Странник27 (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I've found, more or less, what OP is referring to. Russian Wikipedia has an article, ru:Буква зю, about the letter Zyu, a joke name for the Latin letter Z. But the only online reference I could find for "Зю-27" is an article in Russian Absurdopedia, which says that Zyu-27 is the 27th, divine, variant of the letter Zyu. It may be some kind of Internet meme, but I can't tell whether it's notable enough to start a Wikipedia article about it. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Both articles are my own work. The second in a joking wikipedia, it has no authoritative sources for the normal Wikipedia. And I want to create an article with this name in this wiki. A second article about the letter phraseologism sic, it's not the name. But to translate the English Wikipedia it's worth. Странник27 (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wearing a tartan

It is customary for a tartan to be worn when a grandparent had the name. Not a great grandparent. So Mr Jones can wear the Robinson tartan when his grandmother was a Robinson, but his children may not. Clearly his wife can also wear the Robinson tartan. What is the rule when she divorces him? Kittybrewster ☎ 17:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no reference to such a custom in Tartan#The 'right' or 'entitlement' to tartan. Perhaps wherever you heard it would have the answer? --ColinFine (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

During the original period of tartan use, they had a specific meaning regarding your clan affiliation, and, as such, there were specific rules about who could wear which tartans. However, the modern revival of the tartan custom is a lot more flexible, you can really wear any tartan you please. It's something like the level of flexibility in medieval clothing you could wear to a Renaissance Faire. StuRat (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I just got myself a tartan based on where I was born as the one associated with the name just looked uninteresting and faded. And I only got the location one to be randomly different from other people. I prefer a bit of colour. :) I guess it's probably best to avoid ones for different families in case someone actually can tell the difference but The people I go out with don't particularly care that I know of. Dmcq (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The existence of a formal set of rules in the "original period" is a bit dubious - most of the rules first appeared in the nineteenth century, "rediscovered" by antiquarians who were romanticising a vanished past. Pre-1800 sources are very light on the idea of clan "ownership" of tartans; it's possible the idea arose out of the government tartans issued to specific Highland regiments and not from any general tradition. For a good survey of the subject, Hugh Trevor-Roper's The Invention of Scotland is well worth reading. Shimgray | talk | 19:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of different interpretations, as the section referenced above indicates. The US approach identified in the preceding contributions would be very uncommon in the UK.

Generally the patrilineal entitlement would be the primary, with matrilineal opportunities being secondary, but not liable to challenge. In your example that would be unusual if there was another tartan that could be used.

With respect to a divorced partner there is no reason to suggest that the "entitlement", such as it is, would be withdrawn.

ALR (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Vestiarium Scoticum is worth a read. Not just the rules, but also many of the tartans themselves are relatively recent inventions. Apart from the deliberate forgeries, plenty of tartans originated simply because a mill wanted to produce a new pattern. (I wear an Irish county tartan which is, let's be honest, a complete fiction; but given Ireland's history of exporting millions of people to other countries it's probably a common route to "entitlement" in some other parts of the world)
• The inventions were all part of nation-building. It's fun to play along with that, but taking it too seriously would be missing the point. If somebody really wants to find a tartan which they're "entitled" to, it shouldn't be too hard, considering that entitlement is not strictly enforced and of course there's the more recent invention of tartans for modern organisations and for entire countries. Worth browsing the nearest we have to an official register. bobrayner (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

European monarchs relating to Queen Elizabeth II of UK

Which European monarchs are related to Queen Elizabeth II and how meaning first cousin, second cousin or third cousin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.107 (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Due to common descent, everyone is related to everyone if you look back a sufficient number of generations. For more recent family trees the article "Royal descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX" probably has what you're looking for. Gabbe (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Another interesting article is Royal descendants of John William Friso, Prince of Orange since he's the most recent common ancestor of all European Royal Houses. Hot Stop talk-contribs 21:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Royal intermarriage#Grandchildren of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX shows greece, Spain and Denmark. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)Based on the cousin chart, Harald V of Norway is a great-grandson (through his mother) of Edward VII, so he is Elizabeth's second cousin. Margrethe II of Denmark is Victoria's great-great-grandaughter, making her Elizabeth's third cousin. And Beatrix of the Netherlands is, I think, the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-granddaughter of George II of Great Britain, making her - I think - eighth cousins once removed with Elizabeth. StAnselm (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

But, just to be clear, the answer is all six of them. StAnselm (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

See also Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert, which go forward for about four or five generations in the case of royal families. If you open up the ancestry tables (ahnentafeln) under each "Ancestors" heading, you can also go back about seven or eight generations. Victoria's descendants or relatives also married or were born into the no-longer-reigning royal or imperial houses of Russia, Germany, Greece, Yugoslavia and Romania, as well as the restored royal house of Spain. One grandson served in the Nazi Reichstag and a son-in-law served in the British House of Commons as well as as Governor-General of Canada. One son of Victoria's had earlier served as Governor-General of Canada, a grandson was Governor-General of South Africa, and a grandson-in-law was Governor-General of both. I'd give details if I had more time at the moment. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

A great-grandson, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, was Governor-General of Australia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. My original reply said Victoria's relatives had been Govs-Gen of Canada and Australia, but when I checked Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert (which I didn't create, but upon which I've spent dozens if not hundreds of hours), I could only find Canada and S.A. (South Africa, that is, not South Australia, which only gets a Guv). And I think I may even own this stamp: —— Shakescene (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say he only got onto a stamp because of his royal status. The only other governor-general we've ever had on our stamps was the first native-born one, Sir Isaac Isaacs, and that was in 1973, 37 years after he left the post and 25 years after he died. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 17:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

And for the various degrees of cousin, see Cousin Rojomoke (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

December 17

Quote

I am looking for a quote i heard a while ago that basically says a leader must be able to do everything those he commands does. Note this is NOT a quote saying a leader must not be a hypocrite (ie must hold himself to the same standards he holds his subordinates to) or that leaders always have to do everything, just that they be able to. Does anybody recognize it? For my purposes I'm not looking for a specific quote--there is one I have seen but a similar one will work just as well. Thanks, 24.92.85.35 (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a passing thought: The show Undercover Boss featured bosses doing their employee's jobs, so they seem to subscribe to that theory. Could the quote have been made on there ? StuRat (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Context would be useful, where did you hear this quote?

It's quite a common philosophy in some areas, much less common in others, so it's the kind of rhetoric you'll hear from union reps.

ALR (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that Steve Jobs would have agreed. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I doubt this is possible in a modern business environment. A boss in a corporation would have several specialists under him. 88.9.213.105 (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean literally! It's just saying that the boss should understand his or her underlings and what they have to do. Again, any similar quote wil do, but if it helps I have the vauge impression I saw it in the context of pre-20th century warfare, about a general. thanks again. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I havent got a quote but it sounds military to me too, as in the naval phrase "learning the ropes", where Lord So-and-so's son would start as a humble midshipman, tieing knots and rigging masts, even though he could reasonably expect to end up as an admiral.

Indeed it is often a point of honour that senior officers can still shoot straight, complete an assault course, etc, and wouldnt expect their subordinates to respect them if they couldnt. You see obituaries which say "never asked his men to do anything he couldnt do himself", for example. It used to apply to a certain extent in civilian life where the boss's son was expected to "start at the bottom", "get his hands dirty", (albeit briefly) before taking on a managerial role and ultimately inheriting the company. I imagine the rationale was that he wouldnt be able to judge the efficiency (or otherwise) of an employee unless he himself could do their job competently. But nowadays, presumably since the advent of management schools, "bossing" seems to be seen as a separate job in itself where senior managers switch from one company to another (even if they are making quite different products) rather than always staying in the same sector all their lives. (Unlike in the military, where an Army tank commander would not be headhunted by the Navy and given a battleship to command) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.239.226 (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

As an IT professional for most of my life I've had several bosses from other backgrounds who pronounced that they understood what I did in my job because they had "created a few spreadsheets" themselves. Idiots! HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Dream dictionaries

I was wondering if any of you found any of those "dream dictionaries" helpful? By "helpful" I mean whether they've helped you to understand veiled psychological or perhaps spiritual symbolism of your dreamscape. Some people have argued that symbolic contents of dreams are far too personal/individual to assign generalized dictionary definitions to them. What do you think? --BorgQueen (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

My own perspective is that, while there may be some mileage in a generalised "dream meaning", you will get more mileage from reflecting on your own life and what's going on in it. An example from my own life: I used to have dreams where I was going to the toilet in a public setting, such as on a busy roundabout, or maybe the walls of the toilet would disappear and I'd be in the open air. After a few months of this dream, I concluded that it referred to the job I was doing, which I loved but wasn't really qualified to do, so a part of me felt exposed and vulnerable. As soon as I got a different job doing something I felt confident about doing and was fully qualified to do, the dreams stopped. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The dream you described is basically equivalent to a dream of being naked in public, which is quite common and almost archetypal in fact. I just checked I Had the Strangest Dream...: The Dreamer's Dictionary for the 21st Century and found this:

Naked: ... They can also represent the fear of others knowing your private thoughts and feelings. (snip) If you are uncomfortable, ashamed, or embarrased, then a dream of being naked is telling you to do some ego intergration work, and begin the process of releasing your own judgments and criticisms.

This entry makes a reasonably good sense, don't you think? --BorgQueen (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It's very pretty, but didn't really cut the mustard with me. The danger with it is that you look at the entry and think "ok that's what it means" and leave it at that, without actually doing the work of establishng what the dream was telling you. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point. I suppose the ideal way to work with dreams is that you keep your own dream journal and use the dictionary as a reference. Anyway, I am relieved that the dream dictionaries are not completely useless. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

See also dream interpretation.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Buddhist schools

What are the main differences between Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhists besides being geographical different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.212 (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

See Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, and also Schools of Buddhism for a very brief description of each. Staecker (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Roughly put, it's sectarian differences over philosophy and practice. Theraveda tends to focus on the gradual liberation of the self over lifetimes, Mahayana is focused on the liberation of all beings (and tends to see 'personal' liberation as a form of attachment), Vajrayana (which is a good but more 'Indian' than the other two schools) takes a more aggressive, active approach to liberation. Take that as a nutshell - many people will disagree with the details of what I said, but it captures the gist. The differences are on roughly the same scale as the Catholic/Protestant distinction in Christianity (and more pronounced than the Sunni/Shi'ite distinction is Islam) - i.e. fairly major divergences in interpretation of doctrine, but still recognizable as the same essential faith. --Ludwigs2 20:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The Fourth Buddhist Council in Kashmir is sometimes considered to be more or less the formal founding of Mahayana as a somewhat distinct school. One of the main differences is that Mahayana tends to recognize whole successions or hierarchies of Bodhisattvas of various past and future cosmic eras, so that the historic Gautama Sakyamuni tends to be a little de-emphasized... AnonMoos (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is also important to emphasize matters of historical attitude as well. The Theravada sect was driven primarily by a sense of conservatism and a need to preserve what they believed to be the teachings of the historical Buddha as taught in the Suttas, so you find a lot of the material of the Theravada sect is in the form of commentaries on the Pali suttas as found in the Pali Nikayas. The Mahayana and Vajrayana groups were less focused on stressing such a historical link and so composed new works in diferent styles and genres. Rabuve (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Charles IV of the United Kingdom

What would happen if Charles, Prince of Wales decided to style himself Charles IV in recognization of the Jacobite Charles III? It can be possible like Napoleon III could have styled himself Napoleon II instead and Louis XVIII, Louis XVII, both disregarding their precarious predecessors. Also on another note how big is the Jacobite movement today. Does it still even exist?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

No Jacobite claim has been made by the descendent himself since 1807, so it's in a very weak position. There's no way we can tell what would happen if Charles III were recognised. It's so supremely unlikely - not least because Charles may well avoid using that name. That would be recognition of a Catholic king after they were banned, so it would automatically throw the monarchy into disarray. Anything could happen. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

he Prince of Wales has often stated in past interviews that upon his ascension to the throne, he will assume the name and regnal George VII. He has offered the explanation that the name Charles has negative connotations.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he's decided anything yet - do you have the record of such an interview? I know George VII has been widely speculated upon, but that's because there aren't many options. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I read this in various interviews over the last three decades. As you say, nothing has been firmly decided upon.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It's been speculated, but the most recent source I could find, [a Guardian article from 2005], says he's denied it. Smurrayinchester 00:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

King Arthur II ? Or would that be raising expectations too high or seen as assuming inappropiate airs? (As those who heard his first wedding will remember, he was christened Charles Philip Arthur George.) Since the Spanish Armada is still remembered, Philip II (since Philip II of Spain was styled King of England upon marrying Mary I of England) would probably be a less fortunate choice than Charles VII [added after edit conflict] III or (less likely) Charles IV. Pretenders are very rarely counted in a name's succession; for example there was at least one schismatic Pope (or Antipope) John XXIII centuries before the 20th-century Pope John XXIII.. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Since there never was an Arthur I, Arthur II seems unlikely. Even if one accepts the dubious historicity of a "King Arthur", British monarchs are numbered starting from the Norman Conquest. - Nunh-huh 20:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Great point. (I'd forgotten.) It would then probably be even more confusing for Elizabeth II's successor to style himself King Arthur or (unconventionally) King Arthur I. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that the Royal Family's website doesn't list Philip as King, I doubt he'd add make his name Phillip II. Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what precise purpose the Royal Family page you're referring to is intended to serve, but Philip and Mary were definitely the King and Queen of England after their marriage, and it was a serious legal offence to deny it. The laws of subsequent reigns, starting with Elizabeth I's, refer to the Parliaments and laws of Philip and Mary. [The exact constitutional position of Queen Mary I's husband, both theoretical and practical, is another complicated and disputed question, especially as King Philip returned to Iberia after his wedding.] See for example the documents in The Tudor Constitution, edited by G.R. Elton (Cambridge Univ. Press). See also the extensive discussion and citation in (of all places) the comments section of this Sporcle quiz. It would be anomalous to have two King Philips without some differentiation. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

As for the second part of the question... There is no serious Jacobite movement today (those who would actually support a Stuart heir to the throne are a very tiny fringe)... but there is a very large Jacobite fandom. Lots of people play at being Jacobites (especially here in the US)... toasting the "King over the water", growing wistful at the mention of "Bonnie Prince Charlie", and dreaming about "what if". Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I ran across a copy of The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland in a charity shop today, which seems to be a book written espousing the claims of a pretender to the Jacobite pretendership. I have no idea how many followers he has, but I suspect they don't need a very large room for their meetings. Shimgray | talk | 20:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That guy is a grandiose phoney, but the people on the Jacobite succession page have potential claims that might theoretically be considered valid in some circumstances (though extremely unlikely by now)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Very unlikely, as the Jacobite claimant, Charles Edward Stuart, was Catholic, and the UK has a law against that sort of thing. It seems unlikely that Charles would make any moves to commemorate a Catholic pretender, nor would Parliament, who controls the succession (along with the other Commonwealth parliaments), be likely to do it. By "very unlikely", I'd put it on par with "The sun exploding yesterday". --Jayron32 19:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This is much like the problem of deciding the regnal name of Robert III of Scotland; as regnal name#Scotland notes, John was a problematic one (one John was deposed, another was of contested legitimacy) so they fudged the issue and went with the safe alternative. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm sure we used to have, but I can no longer find, a table of future regnal names of British monarchs. If memory serves, the decision that Elizabeth II would be II even in Scotland (which had no ER-I) led to an agreement between the King of Arms and the Lord Lyon that future British monarchs would take as a regnal number the greater of the next-English/next-Scottish/next-UK number. We had a table (extrapolated by that scheme from the numbers of previous monarchs); I wonder where that table went? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Quick search found this AFD Hot Stop talk-contribs 06:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

December 18

Human Relationships

Why is it that people can't get on well with everyone they meet? People throughout their life meet many people, surely in principle, anyone can get on well and/or form a friendship, if there's no prejudices. 2.121.172.172 (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You'd need to have something in common or there's just no basis for a relationship. StuRat (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume it's strictly a matter of ability -- more a matter of motivation. Why would I want to get along with that guy? He's weird. She's ugly. That kid is loud and annoying. That grandma looks schizophrenic. And so on and so forth. Let me just get to my destination; I don't need to waste effort trying to like someone that I have nothing in common with, perhaps even someone I look down on, perhaps even someone I feel has little use living here with me on earth. Vranak (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Monkeysphere. 86.164.79.174 (talk) 08:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It also needs to be pointed out that the majority of people one encounters on a daily basis are for the most part, assholes.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

somehow, I suspect that an attitude like that is not likely to improve one's relationships with the people one encounters on a daily basis. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

True, but at a certain point you have to ask yourself if it's really your own attitude problem -- or whether the folks in question really are heinous, amoral, immoral, and the like. Attitude re-adjustment will only take you so far. Vranak (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I realised (too late) that one cannot get by being a nice girl with a friendly smile and hippie-at-Woodstock goodwill and fraternal love. Most people are greedy, selfish, spoiled and malicious. It's typically manifested by drivers of vehicles, partners/spouses and co-workers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Jeanne Bielle (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

... the majority of people ... are ... assholes.

except those on Wikipedia. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean "especially", surely? Adam Bishop (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The basic reason is that people naturally compete for social dominance, and frequently for other valuable things as well. Looie496 (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, competition and envy also play leading roles. I would imagine that during a war or disaster where everybody suffers an equal measure of hardship, people are more inclined to be pleasant and helpful towards their fellow man.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

To quote Tom Lehrer: "I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that." Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The OP's question was about getting on well with people (and maybe forming friendships with them, which might apply in a limited number of cases, but not the typical case). It wasn't about becoming the BFF or lover of every random person you ever meet. It was about getting on with them, which is about civility, dignity, respect, tolerance, and not carrying guns or knives "just in case" when you go to the supermarket or to work. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

When I read the OP's question "Why is it that people can't get on well with everyone they meet?", I immediately thought of an email copied to me last night where someone I want to get on with wrote something very rude about me to someone else. This has been going on for years. I keep making polite overtures, only to abused either to my face or behind my back. (A lot of mutual "friends" tell me about the "behind my back" incidents.) So, the reason I can't get on with this person is that he has no intention of getting on with me. I just think he's nuts. HiLo48 (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's your problem. You have a low opinion of his sanity, but wonder why he doesn't like you.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we really want to get along with everyone we meet? If we meet someone like Stalin or Hitler, is it really better to aim for peace at all costs instead of opposing their genocidal policies at every turn? Throwing morality out the window in favor of an unnatural peace doesn't seem like a policy that would lead to the greatest common good. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Really, when was the last time you met Hitler or Stalin or anyone remotely like them? If you live in a place where that's actually likely, you have my commiserations. It's not an "unnatural peace" to assume the best of random strangers. Assuming they're the Spawn of Hitler, and acting accordingly, that's what leads to bad outcomes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Simple pragmatics: 'getting on well' with someone requires some modest investment of time and energy, and there are just too many damned people in the world (or even in a small city) to invest time and energy for everyone. So people use cognitive shortcuts, but cognitive shortcuts rely on stereotyped assumptions, and stereotyped assumptions will (inevitably) rub someone the wrong way. It takes an incredible amount of presence of mind to live life without those kinds of cognitive shortcuts, and most people aren't up to it. --Ludwigs2 19:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you (the OP) are entirely right - in principle, any two people (slight modification there) can get along well, if there's no prejudices. It is, however, normal to have prejudices, in the sense of preconceived assumptions about other people - necessary, even, as an aspect of theory of mind. Prejudices are not entirely rational, and we should strive to be more rational, but this is an eternally ongoing project - such is the human condition - and so there will continue to be incidents of two well-meaning people meeting and one of them nevertheless being fearful of the other. This is sub-optimal, but often I think blameless and understandable.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

From a purely biological basis, Dopamine receptor D2 is a big factor in whether two people get along and become good friends. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Judging by the list in the enormous infobox, the gene for this is also a big factor in whether those two people can walk, digest, smell, remember, learn, and have skin pigmentation. The article doesn't say anything about the function of the dopamine receptor specifically - what did you have in mind? Dopamine can affect basic movement, and grooming behaviour, and all sorts of stuff.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Attention span

I saw an infographic on Singularity Hub a few days ago that said that the average attention span nowadays is 5 seconds long. What type of attention are they talking about? Lighthead ^þ 00:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

collapsing sidetracked discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well, I was going to raise this is as a separate question but I may as well bring it in here. I'm not having a go at this particular speaker, but what Julia Gillard said recently is very typical: It's just simply wrong that in a nation of our resources that there are kids who, from disadvantaged backgrounds, get a substandard education and will be destined to be behind the eight ball for the rest of their lives. Nothing wrong with the sentiment, but look at those two "that"s. If that doesn't denote a short attention span, I don't know what would. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC) I don't follow your line of reasoning here. How can a perfectly grammatical sentence denote short attention span? An unfinished sentence, perhaps, but a complete sentence?99.245.35.136 (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC) The second 'that' is extraneous and ungrammatical. I think there is a whole list of Sarah Palin quotes that would fit into this category, including ones where she has been corrected (e.g. North Korea, not South Korea) but has still continued to make the same mistake. Plus my all-time favourite of mistakes on the BBC website. In my job, everything written has to be perfect. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC) (ec) Perfectly grammatical? Take out the parenthetical "in a nation of our resources", and what's left: It's just simply wrong that that there are kids who .... Only one of them is required, and I don't get how a speaker can forget they just said "that" literally only a second earlier, and feel the need to say it again. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC) This is all quite off topic. I wonder if isn't meant to be a demonstration of the lack of attention span amongst Ref Deskers? Anyway, spoken grammar has nothing necessarily related to attention span. Verbal speech is often full of poor grammar. Problems with grammar seem to me quite a different thing than changes in attention span. Problems in fact — of the Sarah Palin variety — seem even further off the mark from what the OP is asking about. (Palin does not confuse South and North Korea because her attention span is poor. She confuses them because she is ignorant.) In any case, two anecdotes, however relevant (and these ones aren't) are not the same thing as demonstrating trends. Especially if you take into account the fact that politicians are probably atypical in many ways for a variety of reasons. Focus, people... --Mr.98 (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC) I consider it to be exactly on topic, which is why I contributed it. The OP may be wanting a broader handle on the issue, but I'm giving a concrete example. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC) In future, perhaps it would help if respondents answered questions directly, rather than.... no, forgot what I was going to say, sorry.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC) I also don't think JackofOz's example is an example of limited attention span. If you removed the second that the sentence makes sense. In colloquial speech we are constantly following "false paths", just to leave them, but leaving behind a broken sentence. 88.9.213.105 (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we have an article on Attention span, which may help in the OP's question. From that article, I would guess it meant 'Focused attention', which is the shorter term one. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, attention span generally refers to the ability to maintain focus on a given task or object. Modern life tends to give certain disadvantages to long attention spans - try working at a service job or in a factory and see how long you can maintain full attention on the task without going stark raving mad. --Ludwigs2 04:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

collapsing sidetracked discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To Jack of Oz; first of all I didn't say that that. You're making me sound like a complete re-tard. And to KageTora, I figured it was focused attention, but in scientific circles I would think that there is a big difference between 5 seconds and 8 seconds. Lighthead þ 05:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC) As JackofOz said, the "that . . . that" comment was made by Australia's prime minister. I believe Jack was employing it as an example of a short attention span; she had forgotten the first "that" in the time it took to her say six intervening words. The remark had nothing to do with you, Lighthead, as far as I can tell. Bielle (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC) Exactly, and thank you, Bielle. I have no idea why Lighthead has taken such personal offence (expressed both here and on my talk page) to my remark about what the Prime Minister of Australia is reported to have said. "This particular speaker" was a reference to her, not to Lighthead. I thought that was clear, but maybe not. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC) The contributors to this thread should be made aware that the comments here have been raised at WP:ANI - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Reference_desk.2FHumanities.23Attention_span. Colonel Tom 06:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC) Cute. So instead of even trying to answer the question the OP asked, we've had a totally tangential thread about a politician's quoted grammar, and thoroughly confused the OP in the process. Gold star, Ref Deskers! One of our finest moments. :-/ --Mr.98 (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC) My initial post was provided as an example of what to my mind was exactly what the OP was asking about. Others have disagreed it was relevant, as is their right. It may not have been the best possible response, but please don't charge me with "[not] even trying". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The two collapsed discussions throughly prove humans' short attention span. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

And to KageTora, I figured it was focused attention, but in scientific circles I would think that there is a big difference between 5 seconds and 8 seconds. I realize that it was my fault about the discussion getting sidetracked. But could I still have a response to what I've italicized? I mean, I do want a response to my question. I don't want the whole thing archived and forgotten about. Lighthead ^þ 21:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, the term isn't all that scientific. It's more of a socio-political pseudo-statistical term used to decry the fact that people don't pay as much attention to important issues as they should. Scientifically there's no real difference between being able focus on a video game (which people are generally very good at) and being able to focus on a news report (which people are generally very bad at). The 5-8 second thing is (I think) more of a TV broadcast measure - how long a show can stay focused on a particular point before it loses the interest of the least disciplined segment of the population (who are the people most prone to impulsive action, and hence the prime target of advertisers). It's more a function of profitability than an actual measurable quantity of the human psyche. --Ludwigs2 23:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

So they're both an average that differs based on the study that's done. I can't explain how I got that from what you've just said, but thanks. I like your comment about the TV broadcast measure. Maybe that's where I got it. Ha ha. Lighthead ^þ 05:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's an article about marketing and the 8-second attention span that might be enlightening. Bielle (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to know when that 8 second span was last noted? Could the above mentioned 5 second attention span be a modern development (and based on the latest research) from us being so wired? That's actually what the above mentioned article was about; i.e. the negative effects of technology. Maybe the article on attention span needs to be updated. Sarcastic tone, not intended. Thanks for the link, though. Lighthead ^þ 07:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Munich, Tennessee

The chicken eyeglasses article contains a link to this patent, whose inventor lived in Munich, TN, which was apparently in Jackson County, Tennessee. Munich isn't listed there now, and the few towns we do list don't say that their old name was Munich, München, or anything like that. Munich (disambiguation) doesn't list it, only Munich, North Dakota which is 1,000 miles away. I can't see a Munich on the Google map of the area, and a naive Google search finds nothing. Where is, or was, Munich TN? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I searched GNIS at [5] and it had no Munich in the state of Tennessee. It must be lost to history, or maybe it's just a nameless place today... ;) --Jayron32 19:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd initially suspected that, given it had a German name, it had changed its name in 1917/18 (in the US' first "freedom fries" moment), and Nameless TN would be perfect ("we'd rather be nameless than German"), but that's not the case. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find it in Category:Former populated places in Tennessee or Category:Ghost towns in Tennessee, and although I found longer lists of the latter by googling, I couldn't find a single ghost town in Jackson County TN. I can't imagine a reason for giving a false location when filing a patent, either. It's all very baffling. Maybe the application went through some intermediary who misheard the name of Andrew Jackson's home town, and you should be looking for a location in Jackson County that sounds like Munich. (By the way, Andrew Jackson is also the name of the President who Jackson county is named after, but I guess that's not very strange.)  Card Zero  (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't found it yet, either—even on on the USGS topographic map. Maybe it's now at the bottom of the Cordell Hull Reservoir in O Brother, Where Art Thou? fashion. Deor (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Do county boundaries (or even names) change over time? Is it possible that Munich is or was in a different county? The first witness (edited to clarify: first witness to the patent) seems to have been a notary public in Tipton County around that time. bobrayner (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

One would hope it would still show up in the dab page; the only US Munich is in North Dakota, and the boundaries didn't change that much. I guess it's possible it changed name and is in another county, but I think all these failed searches show that if it ever did really exist, it can't have been much of a place. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If it was ever on any USGS topo map it should be in the GNIS database, even if it is now vanished, under a reservoir, renamed, etc. It should also be in there if it is a known older name for anyplace. Since GNIS has no Munichs in any county of Tennessee (whether historical, variant named, etc), I think there are two probable conclusions: 1) It is a misspelling of some place with a similar but different name, 2) it was/is overlooked by the USGS, perhaps due to being extremely insignificant. I think the number of overlooked/unconsidered/forgotten place names is higher in Tennessee than most states. Pfly (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

There's also New Munich, Minnesota, which is perhaps 200 miles closer to Tennessee. So, at this rate of progress, we'll find the right one in four more guesses.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

UKIP multiculturalism

I notice that UKIP meaning United Kingdom Independence Party are against multiculturalism but they have some members who are non-white. Does it mean that they are attracting the visible minority vote or they are doing that not to get criticized as a white nationalist party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.6 (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The opposing view to multiculturalism is assimilationism ("a melting pot"); being of an ethnic minority group and favouring assimilation isn't necessarily a logically incompatible position. Assimilationism, which I think we could fairly describe as how the US views its way of accommodating a large and diverse population of immigrants and their immediate children, doesn't mean a "whites only" or anti-immigrant standpoint. Whether assimilationism is how UKIP members and leaders really feel is for you to decide. UKIP leaders are clearly sensitive about being seen as a white nationalist party, or of the party being the subject of entryism by nationalist or anti-immigrant groups. In this BBC story Nigel Farage talks about UKIP being "infiltrated" by BNP sympathisers. This Northern Echo story covers an attempt by UKIP to expel a member who it said had previously been in the BNP. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There is some information on the UKIP's stance in the obvious place, i.e. here UK Independence Party#Immigration and asylum (admitedly mostly coming from their manifesto) Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec)That's correct. According to our article, the UKIP "rejects 'blood and soil' ethnic nationalism...promotes uni-culturalism, a single British culture embracing all races, religions and colours". It states that Britishness can be defined in terms of belief in democracy, fair play and freedom." As Finlay said, it's not impossible to be an ethnic minority and support assimilation. In Canada, for example, most Chinese immigrants bring their culture with them. That culture promotes racism, sexism, tax evasion, corruption, academic dishonesty, greed, and fraud of every type. Their restaurants have questionable hygiene, their businesses ignore Canadian laws, and their neighborhoods simultaneously have the highest property values and lowest income-tax payments. Many Chinese hate these kinds of practices and would fervently support "a single culture embracing all races, religions, and colours" with a "belief in democracy, fair play, and freedom". That doesn't necessarily mean abandoning chopsticks or fried rice, but it does mean abandoning outdated beliefs in gender roles or superstitions.

Lastly, the founding principle of UKIP was euroskepticism, not skepticism towards non-European ethnic or racial groups. Most Europeans would not be considered minorities in Britain, so at least at the time of its founding, UKIP was not anti-minority. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The most intriguing quotation in Genesis

In Book of Genesis 3:22, (NIV) it says

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

This suggests that God is talking to some other god-like entity, when in fact the Abrahamic religions are monothestic. What does "one of us" actually mean—does it suggest that humans too have godlike ability? Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There was a similar question on one of the ref desks recently. There are several possible answers, depending on your beliefs. Some of them are: (1) God was talking to Himself; (2) it was the Trinity; (3) it was a relic of polytheistic mythology; (4) "It's a mystery." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

(5) Something something angels, or something. Whatever they are. Big scary wheel-shaped creatures with many eyes, I think, is the biblical description.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

(6) 'Error in translation' is always possible. I've long thought that it would be interesting to take all the different translations of the (canon books of the) OT and create two versions, as different as the existing translations allow, and see what results. Colonel Tom 20:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

But but... What if God was one of us. Just a slob like one of us, just a stranger on the bus trying to make his way home. :D-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If one approaches the Old Testament as a collection of diverse works rather than as the Word of God, it's pretty clear that the monotheism in it emerged gradually over the course of centuries. Looie496 (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This makes me wonder: what happened to the blog "An Anti-Theist's Commentary on Genesis"? It was at [6]. It used to be great, and it certainly had things to say about this quotation. I expect it probably explained it in terms of the Bible being plagiarized from various earlier myths, adapted to suit, and badly fitted together by multiple authors in various combinations over a long period of time, with some of the polytheism not perfectly edited out and the nature of God not staying at all consistent. (Which, after two edit conflicts, is I see what the two people above me have just said.)  Card Zero  (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the relevant passage of the Genesis Rabbah, an ancient rabbinical commentary. A Rabbi Pappyas says God is referring to himself and the angels. However, Rabbi Akiva says the proper translation should be that "Man has become like one (who knows good and evil) of himself." The Hebrew can apparently be first or third person. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That quotation is explained in our article on Elohim. The Hebrew word Elohim can be either singular or plural, but the verb following it can also be either singular or plural. Gen 3:22 reads "Then Elohim said (singular), 'let us make (plural) man in our image'". This implies that in Gen 3:22, "us" is being used as a pluralis excellentiae. However, other passages are more interesting, as noted by the article. Gen 20:13 says "Elohim caused (plural) me to wander"; Gen 35:7 contains "because there Elohim had revealed (plural) himself to him"; in many cases, passages that imply a plural Elohim were translated in the Greek Septuagint and later English versions as angels or judges.

Also, Judaism may be monotheistic now, but in its early history it was henotheistic. Earlier, I asked a question about whether the Old Testament specifically mentions that other gods exist. I don't think there was a conclusive answer, as the OT mentions numerous gods to denounce them, but that's consistent with the belief that those gods don't exist. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

See http://mlbible.com/colossians/1-15.htm; http://mlbible.com/colossians/1-16.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the word in question in Genesis 3:22 is mimenu, not Elohim. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither of those passages has anything to do with the question. I'm highly suspicious of your motives when you randomly post links to Biblical passages and Watchtower articles that not only do not answer the question in an appropriate, scholarly manner, but that don't pertain to the question in any way. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Genesis is full of mystery. Rashi, regarded by orthodox Jews as the foremost biblical commentator, explains the passage as follows (I paraphrase): that man and God have become alike, for just as he is unique among the animals [now knowing the difference between good and evil, because he's eaten the forbidden fruit], so God is unique among the heavenly beings. In which case Rashi is saying that God is using it as a royal "we". --Dweller (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The more mysterious question is the implication that before man ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he was more or less simply an animal - innocent and ignorant. That puts the whole "in his image" thing into question. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

By that def children are also animals, until they learn right from wrong. StuRat (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

A simple question: if Adam murdered Eve for the heck of it, would he feel remorse? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 04:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

But a question to which there is no simple answer, or, indeed, any answer at all. Which reference work or body of research could one consult to learn the answer? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, some animals may feel guilt. I know dogs and cats that have an "accident" on the floor can act very guilty (slinking away and not looking at you) afterwards. Perhaps this is just fear of punishment, but perhaps not. In any case, they seem to know that they've "done wrong". StuRat (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Could it be the royal we being used in the translation? RJFJR (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why monotheism is so popular in society?

I am fascinated at how the Ancient Hebrews managed to convince that their god is better than other gods. What makes this god so special? What happens if this superior god harms the Ancient Hebrews instead of help them? How can they attach so firmly to a god that can allow evil to happen (famine, war, disease, crime, etc.) and still defend that their god is superior than other gods? If their god fails them, whom do they pray for help? How come this monotheistic religion is so popular today? In popular culture, people appear to worship "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "The Invisible Pink Unicorn" or even the "Google" search engine, all of which contain only one god. Seriously, is there a reason why people tend to favor monotheistic religions over polytheistic ones? Wouldn't it be safer to worship many gods instead of one? SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

People tend to worship whatever seems powerful, to them, and which they don't understand. Early on this tended to mean animals. But, soon people began to understand and control animals, while forces like the Sun, Moon, oceans, weather, etc., remained powerful and beyond their understanding, so they made gods of them (this likely also corresponds with moving to an agricultural society).

Later, once people understood the cycles of the season, tides, weather variations, etc., then people became the most difficult to predict and powerful force they needed to worry about, so we got anthropomorphic gods. Simplifying this to one seemed natural. Leaders like Moses may also have seen one God over all the "nation" as a way to unite various tribes that otherwise would have each had their own gods and fought among themselves.

Now that we understand a bit more about human motivations and actions, perhaps our understanding of "God" is moving away from an old man with a beard to a less tangible "underlying consciousness of the universe". StuRat (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I seriously doubt your theory. Even early humans were experts in animal behavior because they simply couldn't survive without knowing every detail about the animals trying to kill them and the animals they needed to kill for food or fur. 10,000 years ago, humans managed to hunt the wooly mammoth to extinction in North America shortly after arriving from Asia, and there are few animals as big or impressive as the mammoth. Also, the animals that tend to be worshipped are domestic animals that humans managed to control long ago, like the cow/bull/calf, not wild and untamed species.

I also doubt your theory about controlling the natural elements. The ancient Greeks understood the heavens better than anybody else, yet they were polytheistic. The ancient Hebrews had a much less sophisticated cosmology that posited, amongst other things, a flat Earth, yet they were the origin of the world's major monotheistic religions. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Our Hindu readers may disagree, but it certainly seems to be that monotheism is a "step forward" in human consciousness over polytheism. One can agree or disagree with the concept of God, but it seems a lot more logical than the stories of Zeus and Apollo and the like. I mean, monotheism is compatible with the kind of modern concept of the supernatural that StuRat mentions, but polytheism is harder to square with that, I'd think. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is quite an arbitrary conclusion. I see nothing inherently progressive or more logical about monotheism vs. polytheism. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea is a variation on Occam's Razor. That is, one god is a simpler explanation than many, and can explain things just as well. StuRat (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

In any case, it would be underestimating Hindu philosophers to presuppose that they couldn't reconcile quasi-polytheism and quasi-monotheism in their own particular way (see Adi Shankara, advaita, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You are proposing an extension of Pascal's Wager. Pascal said we should gamble on the existence of one god rather than none; you are saying we should gamble on the existence of many gods rather than one. It's not clear how many people approach religion in such a pragmatic way, however. What's supposed to be going on here is belief, not minimising risk. Choosing how many gods to believe in implicitly acknowledges their existence (or that they are all fictitious, or that their numbers are uncertain) before the choice is made. Monotheism#Origin_and_development says something about the belief in one god tending to emerge from the belief in several gods but mainly one god - but that isn't much of an explanation. My explanation is politics: it's all about not believing in those other gods, the ones that belong to those other people over there who we don't currently like. That would cause a trend towards belief in fewer total gods, I think. I am delighted to discover from that article that the Sikh holy book contains the line "my god's got no nose".  Card Zero  (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You also mentioned the problem of evil. It turns out that either God can't be all-powerful, or can't be all good. That is, either the "Devil" is beyond his control, or is within his control and yet allowed to continue creating evil in the world (with the "Devil" being either a separate being or a manifestation of God). StuRat (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Is any religion truly monotheistic anyway? They've all got various hierarchies of god-ish beings. And on the other hand, the ones that are more blatantly polytheistic usually have one god that is more powerful than the rest. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The three major Abrahamic religions profess to be monotheisms, but I've never understood how they can do so with a straight face, what with their pantheon of angels, devils, demons, and even djinns. (It is interesting to note that the more recent their foundation, the larger their pantheon, and the louder their declarations of monotheism.) Sikhism and the Bahá'í Faith are also supposedly monotheisms; are they more deserving of the classification? -- ToE 04:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

My local Catholic Church seems to more statues, images, symbolism and worshipping of Mary than of Jesus. Admittedly, it is a St Mary's, but I've found it difficult to balance their obsession with the "no other gods" and the "no idols" rules. HiLo48 (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Is that actually true? Surely it has 14 stations of the cross, each one centred on Jesus, a crucifix, centred on Jesus, and probably at least one other image or statue of Jesus: I doubt it has 16 images of Mary. It also probably has Mass every day, and two or three times on Sunday, which is centred entirely on God and Christ's sacrifice: in England and Wales, Mass generally features a Hail Mary, but this is a special dispensation, not the rule for the rest of the world. It might have the Angelus every day, I suppose, but that is almost entirely quoting from Luke, and pretty short (shorter than a Mass, even a quick daily Mass). I doubt it has the rosary every day, which is , in any case, focused on meditating on Jesus's life as seen through Mary. "My soul magnifies the Lord" and all that. I've only heard such things said in the past by people who admitted they'd never actually stepped into a Catholic church, so I'm interested how much this is exaggeration or a seriously odd church. 86.164.79.174 (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

See "Hyperdulia" for the official Catholic church answer (doesn't seem to have a separate article on Wikipedia, but is merged into the general veneration article). Around about the 3rd century A.D., the fact that Christianity attempted to reconcile monotheism and a prominent feminine element was an advantage in the competition with Mithraism (since Mithraism was an exclusively or almost exclusively male religion, in membership and doctrines). AnonMoos (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

(Responding to the original question) There's an interesting essay in Discover magazine from 2005: Are the Desert People Winning?. The author argues that it is the climate that influences whether a group develops a monotheistic (desert people) or polytheistic (jungle people) religion. The predominance of monotheism, then, can simply be attributed to the fact that desert people have done pretty well for themselves in the history of the world. I'm not sure how much I buy it, but it's an interesting read, anyway. Buddy431 (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's true, as Egypt was very much polytheistic in ancient times (and the surrounding peoples), as are the vast majority of tribal religions across the whole of Africa, as well as Australia, and North America. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too much impressed by the desert hypothesis; the first more or less broadly national monotheistic society in the world (as opposed to speculations among a few philosophers or small royal court circles) happened during the reigns of Hezekiah or Josiah of Judah, along the southern half of what is now known as the West-bank hill chain (i.e. the central core of ancient Judea) -- not the desert -- when the religious reforms demanded by strict monotheism advocates (or "prophets") were adopted by the royal government of the kingdom of Judah. Some prophets sometimes retreated to deserts for inspiration or refuge, but I really don't know how Judaism could reasonably be called a "desert religion", and Arabia and North Africa were flagrant haunts of polytheism before Islam. AnonMoos (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"(also responding to the original question) I'm not sure whether monotheism gained traction simply because it was popular. Judaism used to be isolated to a tiny geographical area (a part of the Levant), and in the entirety of human history, has not been popular outside that area. Christianity spread because the Roman Empire, after centuries of persecution, became Christian under Constantine the Great after he converted to Christianity. When the most powerful empire in the world and the birthplace of Western civilization officially embraces a religion, that tends to have an effect. After the collapse of the Roman Empire, the majority of Europe remained Christian. In the centuries after the Age of Discovery, Europeans didn't shy away from replacing indigenous populations in the New World with Europeans, or from forcing their religion on the natives. That's why the Americas and Australia are Christian--because their populations are mostly descended from Christian Europeans. The centuries-long world dominance by Europeans and their descendents--first by the British Empire, and now by the United States--explains the "popularity" of Christianity.

A similar set of historical circumstances explains the "popularity" of Islam. Muhammad managed to unite almost all of the Arabian peninsula under a religious polity, and even before his death, his armies were already threatening Europe. The Rashidun Caliphate, formed shortly after Muhammad's death, became the largest empire in history (up to that time) after only 30 years. After that, the Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid, Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal empires brought huge amounts of territory into Islamic control. Islamic caliphates once controlled not only the modern Middle East, but also northern Africa, Spain, the Balkans, Persia, and India. Not surprisingly, the areas that Islamic empires have controlled the longest are today's Muslim countries. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

People really didn't "tend to favor monotheistic religions over polytheistic ones" until the Late Antiquity historical period, and they still don't in many areas of South Asia, East Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa today. From a broad historical perspective, the rise of multi-ethnic or "cosmopolitan" empires, embracing peoples of many nationalities and backgrounds (Seleucid Empire, Roman Empire, etc.), served to somewhat undermine the individual national mythological pantheons -- the traditional public religious rituals were kind of tied to the details of the yearly agricultural cycle of one particular city-state or mostly-monoethnic realm, and the tales told of the gods were not very morally edifying, while by Roman times many residents of the cities were looking instead for individual salvation, and sometimes also a quasi-universalistic morality (then found more in philosophies than traditional religions). This led to the spread of what are sometimes called "oriental mystery religions" (worship of Isis and Osiris, Mithraism, etc.), the non-oriental mystery religion of Orphism, and also eclectic or syncretic systems such as Gnosticism, Manicheism, etc. etc. The "cult of the genius of the emperor" was somewhat encouraged in order to provide some common religious basis for the Roman empire as a whole, but it was rather superficial. In this situation, Judaism commanded respect among many for its severe monotheism and strict morality (though of course some thought that Jews were "atheists"), and at some moments it seemed not impossible that chunks of the Roman empire might convert to Judaism. However, to become a Jew, you not only had to adopt a belief-system, but also kind of renounce your old ethnicity and embrace a new ethnic identity, and follow ritual practices which were somewhat alien (in a few cases even repellent) to Greco-Roman culture (starting with circumcision) -- and the First Jewish Revolt, Second Jewish Revolt etc. added political complications. In this context, the "gentile Christianity" of Paul offered a similar monotheism and elevated morality as Judaism did, and retained the Jewish scriptural heritage, but didn't require non-Jews to renounce their ethnic group affiliations, or become circumcised, or observe detailed ritual purity requirements. And Christianity didn't have the taint of armed rebellion which Judaism acquired (though of course many in the Roman empire regarded Christians also as "atheists", and politically disloyal if they refused to worship the genius of the emperor). These are some of the reasons that Christianity spread fairly widely, especially among the urban lower classes (some estimates are that 10% of the population of the Roman empire had become Christian by 325 A.D., and a much higher percentage of the urban lower classes). AnonMoos (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Put very succinctly, there are some nice accidents of history that explain why a few specific religions became quite large. Population-wise, monotheism is significant primarily through Christianity and Islam. (Judaism of course gets a lot of cultural credit, but its numbers are quite small by comparison to those two.) Both of these forms of the Abrahamic religions were explicitly evangelical and imperialist — they were political as well as religious tools, and the empires they became hitched to are responsible for their high numbers worldwide. I see very little evidence to argue that monotheism vs. polytheism is particularly responsible for any particular cultural success, and I see no reason to consider monotheism more logical or progressive than polytheism. There are arguments that specific variants of religions (e.g. Calvinism or Catholicism) led to certain economic or political practices that aided various groups and various times, but it's worth noting that in anything as varied as religious beliefs, there are going to be innumerable cultural differences, and the ones that end up being useful are the ones that are going to gain dominance. (It's evolutionary, in other words.) So I'm not sure that monotheism or polytheism is really the relevant variable there. There are certainly better and more convincing ways of explaining the fates of various societies. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No doubt some aspects of religious history are dependent on contingent details of history, and one can speculate that things might have gone differently if just a few things had been changed. However, some anthropologically minded scholars of the history of religion are convinced that the meteoric rise of religions of individual salvation and universal morality (most conspicuously Christianity and Buddhism) is not an accident, but that such religions were specifically suited to thrive in cosmopolitan empires (Rome, Asoka, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that this is all just opining: there's no real answer to the question as the OP phrased it, but it's the kind of thing that people (such as I) do love to gab about. I'll limit myself to pointing out that monotheism dovetails nicely with 'nationism' (the conception of a people as a political unity above and beyond racial, cultural, and regional identifications). that's really at the core of monotheism, anyway - One People, One God - it's just that the idea needed a sufficiently multicultural, cosmopolitan setting to take root. In other words, you need a broad mess of conflicting cultures and beliefs that existed in something like the Roman Empire to tear the notion of 'One People' away from its natural identification with some single ethnic group and reattach it to a political abstraction. That never happened in Judaism (even to this day Jews strongly associate Judaism as an ethnicity with Judaism as a faith), and it happened in somewhat different ways in Christianity and Islam (not to mention the spread of Buddhism and Vedic Brahmanism, which lacked the iconoclastic tendencies of Abrahamic religions and so tended to absorb regional differences rather than expunge them). --Ludwigs2 04:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Why the English Wikipedia is racist in some articles?

Hi: Sometimes i like to compare the different version from some articles that i read in wikipedia; i read at first in spanish (i'm colombian) and then i check the english version, that like i see it, it's the first one, the original article, and the others just translations; but some times you can find "differences" not the translation, it's what the article want to say about something or somebody, and my example today it's the article about Rubin "The Hurricane" Carter, you see in the spanish article well the article talk about his troubles with the justice and his boxing career and how he finally can go utside prison, and that's it nothing more, nothing less.

When I read the article in english, I have to read it to times, why? well because in this article Rubin Carter doesn't look like a person who had been some troubles around his life. In the english article he looks like a punk, like another negro who broke the rules and pay the price for all their faults.

And I'm asking ¿Why this is happen? at this point i'm thinking, many people around the world check wikipedia at list one time a day and they preffered to check the english version because all of them (including myself) considered better. This year i was thinking send money to wikipedia for all your efforts but i'm sorry i'm not going to do it because it's like give you a permission to write all you want, but not the truth.

And there is some other articles that do exactly the same especially all the articles that talk about something o somebody who live in The United States, or some facts that happened in the United States. so I want to ask something. "WHO WRITE WIKIPEDIA IN ENGLISH, ¿FBI?, ¿THE CIA?, ¿THE DOD? WHO?.

I'M ASKING THIS BECAUSE WHEN WE CHECK THE HISTORY FROM A POINT OF VIEW SOME OF THIS FACTS MAKE LOOK "BAD" TO THE U.S, AND I FOUND THAT THIS ARTICLES TRY TO CHANGE THE HISTORY AND THE TRUE.

¿THIS IS THE REFERENCE THAT YOU CAN SHOW TO THE REST OF THE WORLD? THAT EVEN PROYECTS LIKE WIKIPEDIA STILL TRY TO HIDE FACTS OF THE HISTORY WHEN THE U.S HAD BEEN RACIST, CRUELTY, WITH YOUR OWN CITIZENS AND SOMETIMES WITH PEOPLE FROM OTHER PLACES AROUND THE WORLD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemesis638 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The proper place for this complaint is on the Rubin Carter talk page. However, let me add that it's equally possible that people from his culture (or boxing fans) are more forgiving, perhaps too forgiving, of his shortcomings. Can you give us specific examples of racist statements in the article ? You might compare this with the OJ Simpson trial, where many whites saw overwhelming evidence of his guilt and many blacks thought he was being framed. StuRat (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Unfortunately, you are right about biases in Wikipedia, but it is very difficult to build any source without bias. Every source will have some sort of cultural/political bias, although I think Wikipedia is better than most sources (read the Encyclopedia Britannica article on the USSR, for example). There is no concerted effort to "hide facts", though; it all depends on what editors are writing the article. InverseHypercube 21:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You ask "WHO WRITE WIKIPEDIA IN ENGLISH....?" The answer. You did. Well, you haven't yet, but as a registered user there's nothing to stop you making it better. HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It is sometimes true that the English article is translated into other languages but sometimes they are written completely independently and sometimes the English article starts as a translation of some other language's article. There are probably articles in the Spanish Wikipedia that have no counterpart in the English one. You could be the translator. Rmhermen (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at the article and realised it was about the Hurricane of the Bob Dylan song. I would have expected more coverage of the Dylan connection, not just a short mention under "Popular culture". Did Dylan's highlighting of the case not have any effect? If not, it would be good to know why not. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult to compare the POV of the en and es (translated) versions of this particular article as they differ so much in quality. The "en" version is nearly ten times the length of the "es" version and has 31 inline references in addition to four "Further reading" and two "External links" entries. The "es" version has no references at all but does have three "External links" entries and is illustrated. Where the "en" version's lede presents a good summary of the article, the "es" version's lede consists of a single sentence which translates to, "Rubin "Hurricane" Carter was born on May 6, 1937 in Paterson New Jersey, which was then one of the most racist cities throughout the United States." Perhaps the OP can suggest a higher quality "es" Wikipedia article for comparison. -- ToE 01:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Further examination suggests that the "es" version is, in its entirety, a copyright violation of this blog. (I first assumed that the blog was a verbatim copy of the es.wikipedia article, but if I understand the dates correctly, the blog preceded the related version of the article by two years.) I am now rather skeptical of public domain status of this commons photo, as it is sourced from the blog as well. -- ToE 02:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the article should be tagged for deletion in the Spanish wikipedia. With a thank you to the OP for inadvertently bringing this to our attention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be sufficient to revert the 19 may 2011 edit which copied over the blog, restoring the earlier version which is about twice the length of the current "en" article's lede. Perhaps, with help from the work already done on our well cited article, the OP would like to build up a more complete and NPOV "es" version. -- ToE 20:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

December 19

Stolen credit card used at USPS

I lost my credit card and it was used at the local post office. My card company wants a copy of a police report to remove the charges. The police said that I had to file a report with the Postal Inspection Service since it was used at USPS. I went to the local postmaster, and she pulled the tape, showing two teenage girls buying A LOT of books of stamps and an American Express gift card, altogether about $500 worth of stuff. I filled out the mail fraud form on the Postal Inspector's website, but it didn't give me an option of printing a copy of the report. Anyone else here ever have this problem? Am I screwed? Anybody have any idea what two teeny boppers would be doing with all those stamps? 198.228.235.168 (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like a request for legal advice. Please contact the local postal inspector and/or a lawyer for information on how to proceed. --Jayron32 02:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayron - I'm not sure this is legal advice, just advice about dealing with the Post Office's bureaucracy. IP, go to your local post office, tell them you filed the report (hopefully you retained some type of case number), and ask for a hard copy. They'll probably do it by mail, so don't expect fast service. However, the post office (while slow) is very uptight about mail fraud, so you can expect that they will take this seriously. Remember that what these girls did is almost certainly a felony, and postal inspectors (while nowhere near as 'glamourous' as FBI agents), have all the same powers and resources at their disposal. --Ludwigs2 04:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Ludwig. I already know what my options are legally, I just wondered if anyone else here had any experience dealing with the postal service with this kind of problem. 198.228.235.168 (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Why stamps? We can only speculate but stamps are one of the few things you can buy that are easily sold essentially at face value (and take up little space). You can't buy certified checks, money orders, bearer bonds or other negotiable instruments easily with a stolen credit card. You can buy electronics, jewelry, etc. but such items immediately go down from retail value, having to be fenced at a mark down. Stamps are almost as good as cash.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Are they, though? Is there a resale market in stamps? Where could I show up with a bunch of "Forever" stamps and actually redeem them for cash? Where could I trade $500 in stamps for a new TV? I'm not so sure about this. Maybe I'm in with the wrong crowd, but having $500 worth of stamps would not translate into have $500 worth of cash. It would be terribly time consuming and difficult to convert those back into cash, and nobody would accept them as straight barter. Because in the end, postage stamps aren't cash. They're postage stamps. And who needs more than a few books of those around? But maybe I'm missing out on a postage stamp laundering operation somewhere. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You never know with teenagers. maybe they want to write Christmas letters to everyone in their school; maybe they are stocking up for a club. $500 dollars in stamps is a bit more than 1000 letters, which is a lot but not an impossibly large number for a couple of kids on a mission, particularly if they're bulk-mailing some leaflet or invite. --Ludwigs2 08:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, they found the two culprits, it was two sisters from Florida up here visiting their family for Christmas. Apparently their grandma saw them in a still scene from the surveillence tape that the postmaster had hanging, and she made them turn themselves in with the stuff they bought/stole. Come to find out they tried it at the local Krogers too, but it was declined and they kept the card there. Haven't found out what they were doing with those stamps though, maybe they wanted to send their friends postcards from our quaint little town nobody's heard of? 198.228.235.133 (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

And it was $300 in stamps; $200 of it went on an Anerican Express gift card. 198.228.235.133 (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

USA presidential veto override

To override a presidential veto in the USA, is the two-thirds majority required simple or absolute? --130.216.172.27 (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The relevant clause of the U.S. constitution is Article One, Section 7: Bills, Clause 3: Presidential veto:

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Our Supermajority#Two-thirds majority article points out the difference between simple and absolute majority, without indication which applies to U.S. presidential veto overrides. This usgovinfo.about.com states that "A two-thirds majority vote of the Members present is required to override a presidential veto." suggesting a simple two-thirds majority. Can we find a better reference for that? -- 203.82.91.129 (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, a better reference is Veto Override Procedure in the House and Senate (by Elizabeth Rybicki of the loc) which states, "A vetoed bill can become law if two-thirds of the Members voting in each chamber agree, by recorded vote, a quorum being present, to repass the bill and thereby override the veto of the President." also indicating a simple two-thirds majority. -- 203.82.91.129 (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Searching further, I've not discovered if the simple two-thirds majority is spelled out explicitly elsewhere in the constitution or supporting documents, if it is understood to have been the founders intent, or if it is just a matter of tradition. -- 203.82.91.129 (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The Veto override article pointed to this item[7] Note on page 35, item 2530: "The House overrode the veto on September 19, 1996 by a vote of 285 yeas to 137 nays. (142 Cong. Rec. 23851)." That number 285 is more than 2/3 of the total number voting (422) but is short of what 2/3 of the full House would be (290/435). Hence it's the members present, not the total members. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This is correct. Those who refuse to vote are not included in vote at all. 2/3 of those who do vote are all that is required. This has been used for many things in Congress. Assume you want a bill to pass, but voting on it will cause a problem come election time. You refuse to vote and get someone else to vote for the bill. Then, you tell your people that you "didn't vote for" the bill. They assume you voted against it - which isn't true. So, those who refuse to vote to override a veto can claim they didn't vote for (or against) the veto override when it comes time for an election. -- kainaw™ 20:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there the option to abstain from voting? This would be formally recorded as an abstention, and clearly a different action from voting either for or against. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

memories of a bygone business

I'm trying to find some memorabilia with the RCA logo on them. Where is a good place to start?24.90.204.234 (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If all you care about is the logo, and you're not looking for official merchandise, then you can create your own memorabilia at Cafepress. You would need to find a high resolution scan of the logo online which you would then upload to the site and thereby create your own merchandise. inb4 "copyright violation" --Viennese Waltz 08:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I do care about the logo, and I'm looking for official merchandise, to tell you the truth.24.90.204.234 (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I just did a search at eBay for "RCA logo" and a number of items came up. Some more recently produced than others. Might get some antiques there. Dismas|^(talk) 09:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not looking for antiques. Actually, I'm looking for memorabilia with the RCA Corporation logo, to tell you the truth.24.90.204.234 (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Street number required for defunct Belfast pub

Would anybody happen to know the exact address of the defunct Chlorane Bar in Gresham Street, Belfast? I need the info for an article, thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article: "The Chlorane Bar was located at 23 Gresham Street in Belfast's city centre close to the Smithfield Market. " 88.8.69.150 (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, would number 23 be where a large parking lot is today?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently not. Take a look at Google Maps: [[8]] 88.8.69.150 (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that it would have stood on what is now the very southern end of that parking lot, as the tattoo parlor just to the south bears an address of No. 25 (Google street view, on the painted sign on the building's side, facing the parking lot), and the shops farther to the south are numbers 27 and 31. Deor (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Languages of the Jeberti

Hi,

Jeberti people#Language says (without giving its source) that: "The Jeberti in the Horn of Africa speak Tigrinya, Somali, Amharic and Arabic", whereas, according to this (emphasis added): "The Jeberti (Jiberti/Djiberti/Jeberty) people are Tigrinya-speaking Muslims" (based in part on [9], which only says, without elaborating: "the Jeberty, a Muslim Tigrigna-speaking group"). Is there information available on the extent to which the Jeberti speak languages other than Tigrinya?

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The truth lies probably somewhere in between. Just like you speak French, English, Europanto &al., many Jeberti people probably speak several languages, too. As for the article; since the currently has no source for the additional languages, so I'll remove them and add your reference. Thanks for providing it. — Sebastian 06:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Variability in crime rates

Why do crime rates tend to remain consistent throughout a given country, at least when we compare cities to cities, and rural areas to rural areas? Australia differs from the US, but most cities throughout the US seem to have much higher murder rates especially than Australian cities. Why the (seeming) consistency? IBE (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Seemingly, murder rates are more affected by national factors - the crime's definition, statistics collection, policing and sentencing policy, national, ethnic and cultural concerns - than local ones, such as where the offender lives or local policing policy. Given the examples I've listed, I think that is entirely consistent with what you'd expect. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The OP's statement is demonstratedly not true for the U.S. Looking at United States cities by crime rate, you can compare cities of differing population and find wildly different numbers. The violent crime rate in Atlanta, Georgia is twice what it is in Portland, Oregon, but the cities have almost the same population. Buffalo, New York and Henderson, Nevada have almost identical populations, but Buffalo has over six times as much violent crime. So if you are going to ask questions like "Why do crime rates remain consistent throughout a given country?" then your supposition behind the question, that the crime rates are consistent, had better be true. It is demonstratedly not, ergo, the question is not answerable. If you want to know what factors are well correlated to crime rate, in a general sense, the Wikipedia article Criminology (as well as any external sources on the topic) would be a good place to start. But your initial question can't be answered directly, because it is plainly wrong. It is a fallacy of the Complex question type, akin to "When did you stop beating your wife?" --Jayron32 17:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

However, even if there is a high variability between cities in a given nation, it's definitely the case that the average crime rate is far higher in some nations than others, and it may be the case that every major city in nation A has a higher crime rate than every major city in nation B. One key differences is the availability of guns, particularly handguns, to criminals. As mentioned previously, how crimes are classified also matters. In some US states, public urination can be classified as a sex crime, for example. In some Sharia law nations, no woman had better report a rape unless she has several male witnesses, or she will be accused of seduction and adultery, and may be shunned by her family, in any case. So, you'd expect rape statistics to be quite low there. StuRat (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes there may be legal factors regarding enforcement and prophylactic steps, that can affect crime rates, but it's time if you want to start pointing out specific examples. List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate is a good place to muse over possible correlations. I'd rather we not get sidetracked by specific causes. Relative poverty seems to be a reoccurring theme, whether it's comparing U.S. cities or countries. Shadowjams (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That list seems to indicate that an uneven distribution of wealth may be more relevant than absolute wealth. Many of those nations high on the list are "playgrounds for the rich", such as the Jamaica, Nevis and St. Kitts, Trinidad and Tobago, and the Bahamas: List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#2010s. I suspect that lesser crimes, like theft, are even more dependent on wealth inequality. StuRat (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, if the OP were interested in why, on average, crime rates in the U.S. are higher than in Australia, that would be answerable. But, that isn't what they asked. They asked why the crime rates in the U.S. were consistent. They are not. --Jayron32 18:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The last line says "Why the (seeming) consistency ?", which leaves the door open to the idea that it only appears that crime rates are consistent. StuRat (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't even appear they are consistent. Or seem. Or look like. Or any other synonym. They appear to be completely inconsistent. So one cannot answer why they seem to be consistent if they seem to be elsewise. --Jayron32 18:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"Appears" could include how it's portrayed by the media. For example, I've noticed that England loves murder mysteries, and many places have more fictional murders each year than real ones. Also, how much publicity real murders get may vary dramatically by culture. StuRat (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll step in and just clarify the question, single indenting since it's for the sake of everyone. I'm curious about the global situation, and I know full well that there are exceptions to what has always seemed a reasonably general rule. I knew that Washington DC, for example, had a very high murder rate. I compared the U.S. and Australia in the question because it was what came to mind. I made the question brief because I often write long-winded posts that over-clarify, and I'm trying to cut down. I hope people can avoid disputing the accuracy of the question unless it's globally false. "Seeming" was meant to mean that it seems that way to me unless there is evidence that it is globally false. I could have done more background reading, but these sorts of questions usually turn up so much of interest, and curiosity has been getting to me for a while now. IBE (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

So what's the question? Is it if crime rates are consistent across a country, or is it do countries vary in their consistency? I would imagine there are wild differences in the homogeneity of crime rates depending on country. Larger, more geographically and culturally diverse countries are probably going to be more varied.

But even if that's the basic question, by what metric do we measure consistency of crime rates across a nation? Some statistical test? Is it fair to do that the same way for Japan as it is for the U.S.? We don't seem to have an Australian analogue to United States cities by crime rate, but the Australian Bureau of Statistics says in 4519.0 - Recorded Crime - Offenders, 2009-10, that the crime rate [general rate] in the Northern Territory was 5,090 per 100,000, and in the Australian Capital Territory was 2,900 per 100,000. 175% difference. Compare Dallas, Texas's violent crime rate of 701 (our wiki article is the source) to St. Louis with 1,747. 250% difference. Shadowjams (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd expect that the smaller the demographic units are, the more variability will become apparent. So, if you look at it by state, you will get a moderate variability, but if you break down to county, you will see more, and at township, even more. At a small enough level you will see effects from specific events, like a gang war or one person who goes on a killing spree. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Nazism and Occultism

Reichskonkordat - this wasn't mentioned in the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_occultism. Think it's relevant because it's an agreement btw The Third Reich and Catholic Church. I understand that this concordant gave Catholic Church control over childhood education. I mention this only because I feel religion is relevant to occultism - especially if the author is going to assert that Hitler was possessed by the devil. Exorcism has always been in the realm of the Catholic Church (at least I think so). I'm sory if this is the wrong forum - I tried to go through all of the help articles - tried the discussion link, but couldn't figure out how to pose a question.

Thank you.

76.102.14.171 (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Kim Woo

The talk page of the article - in this case Talk:Nazism and occultism - is normally a good place for suggestions and questions about what should be in an article. But the Nazis' relations with the Catholic church are covered elsewhere: there is an article Religion in Nazi Germany, and the Reichskonkordat has its own article as well. So I don't think the Konkordat belongs in Nazism and occultism, unless the Church and the Nazis specifically discussed occultism. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You raise a question in the Talk (or Discussion) page exactly as you did here. --ColinFine (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Atheism in a novel

Okay, this might be tough for me to explain. So, I'm Christian Orthodox, believe in God, Jesus, etc. And recently I wanted to write a novel that deals with several serious topics, like suicide, homosexuality, and atheism (a character will kill herself, a male is homosexual and is having trouble coming out, and there is a feud between characters when an atheist influences a Catholic to become an atheist.) Could simply writing about a character doubting intelligent design, a God, etc. be enough for the Christian (or Catholic) faith to look down on me, even if I'm a devout Christian? Is it a "sin"? I'm just really confused about this, any answers would be great. 64.229.180.189 (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it really so important what other Christians think? Isn't the main thing what God thinks? But in either case your priest might be more qualified to help you out than the refdesk (at least, if we reformulate the second question as "what the Orthodox Church thinks that God thinks"). --Trovatore (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Many Christians have written books about atheism and doubts about God. Flannery O'Connor's Wise Blood, about an atheist preacher, comes to mind - she was a devout Catholic and the book is a satire, but the central character's beliefs come across vividly. Other Christian writers, including John Milton (Satan in Paradise Lost), C.S. Lewis (The Screwtape Letters), Fyodor Dostoyevsky (The Brothers Karamazov), William Blake (The Marriage of Heaven and Hell), Graham Greene, John Donne, have written works that gave good arguments to atheists or demons or represent characters undergoing serious doubts about their faith - not all of these people were conventional Christians by the standards of their time, but they all had strong religious convictions. Ultimately, it depends on the specifics of the book and on your own conscience, and there's no guarantee that all Christians will feel the same way about your book (indeed it's very likely they won't). --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to write about characters you don't have much in common with, you need to learn something about them, and that learning has to come at first hand. The writer who bases a character on what he's learned second-hand (from pop culture, from stereotypes, from his pastor, from teachers) will find it harder to tell a true story (and harder to sell that story) than the writer who goes out there and talks to the type of person he's writing about and learns about his life. Stereotypes exist for a reason: that reason is not because they're true (they rarely are) but because they make it easier to dismiss "the other" as "the lesser". A good writer never sees other people through a third-party lens, nor does he dismiss another person as a collection of stereotypes, mannerisms, and catchphrases. He sees each individual as a person. --NellieBly (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

While I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment, Nellie, I believe that the words "you need to" are sadly not true, at least not when worldly success counts as a criterion. I can think of a number of influential books where authors didn't follow that rule. But those were all magic bullets, tools of the devil, leading to anything from hatred to immense human suffering. To the original poster I would recommend following Jesus' example, who opened his heart towards those despised by his community. — Sebastian 09:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom of Imereti

Were the Georgian Kings of Imereti forced to convert to Islam like their neighbors in Kakheti and Kartli?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

December 20

Why'd it take so long for books (codex form) to be invented?

In 2 or 3 thousand years of readers, not one of them thought of putting the pages one on top of the other and bind them together, instead of making a really, really long page that had to be rolled up to use (the scroll). It takes alot longer to scroll (haha) to the page you want. Sure only a small percentage of the population was literate and the population was a lot smaller but they were the smartest people in their society and thousands of years is a long time. Seems like it would take more insight to discover the papyrus in the first place. And anyway, the very first time anyone wrote they probably only had to write a little, so one sheet was sufficient. Then he wrote some more and it couldn't fit so which would seem more natural, make another sheet and hold it over the other one or keep gluing sheets to the end until it drops to the floor, thus rolling it up was invented? It can't be so obvious that everyone did it. And if papyrus is naturally roll-ey or something why can't they just heat it with steam or something until it lays flat? Given the effort it would take to write one couldn't they have at least painted the edges of the "pages" of with a repeating color code? Like "hmm, laws relating to slaves stealing?" [[scrolls till the third green line disappears]]? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose they just kept doing what they made in the past until the wax tablet was invented. The latter couldn't be binded into a scroll, so the codex was born. Just a guess. Also take into account that scrolls are still used for religious texts. There is little reason to be innovative here. 88.8.69.150 (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The wax tablet predates the codex by millennia. It may even predate the scroll. --NellieBly (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll add that until you've tried to make a book yourself, you can't really appreciate the difficulty of it. If you can make a sheet of paper you can make a scroll; cutting, shaping, arranging, binding, and (most importantly) preserving books takes more knowledge and skill. --Ludwigs2 02:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Along the same I-don't-really-know-but-I'm-a-guessin' line, I would think that a book is very useful for things you intend to read multiple times, or flip around in. Scrolls are pretty straightforward if you're only reading things once or twice, or sending short messages, or moving in mostly one direction. Given what most writing was for in those days — records of who owed what to whom, and decrees, and laws — a scroll works pretty well, on the whole. Once you start expecting people to read lots of things, like a religious text, a book becomes more useful, but even then, there are still some folks who manage to get by with scrolls in that arena. But I think one of the main points an honest to god history of the book scholar would emphasize is that people didn't use these kinds of things the same way back then as they do now. They didn't keep personal libraries with stuff on the shelves to be consulted frequently or shared. A handful of folks might have, but a handful of folks does not a print industry make. As the technology evolved, the habits evolved, which led to more technology, and so on. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You say that "some folks...manage to get by with scrolls in that arena" but I just wanted to point out that also found at the linked-to article is is that "The text of the Torah is also commonly printed and bound in book form for non-ritual functions." Bus stop (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

---

The spread and popularization of the codex (book) form was very strongly associated with Christians, so maybe the real question is why Christians were so much more receptive to the innovation? -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, since they were all about change, if books had been in use before, the Christians might have insisted on scrolls. StuRat (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That's rather pointlessly flippant... AnonMoos (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What's flippant about it ? While there are those groups that want to keep things the same no matter what (like Orthodox Jews), there are other groups that believe in change for change's sake. Since the Christians nullified much of the Old Testament, switching the format of the writings is trivial in comparison. StuRat (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Your remark was neither true nor insightful nor amusing == pointlessly flippant. AnonMoos (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

One other thought on the difference, since scrolls lack a binding to crack, do they actually hold up better to constant use than books do ? These days, that's no big deal, just get a new copy when the old book wears out. But, back then, producing another copy, by hand, was prohibitively expensive. (They could also rebind the books, if they caught it in time, before pages were lost.) StuRat (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Getting the book rebound was the usual solution for valuable books. Alansplodge (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Scrolls are a pain in the ass. If you need to have a long work easily indexible (i.e., able to jump to any passage easily) then you need lots of relatively short scrolls. Even a moderately sized work would take an entire shelf that a codex of a few inches thick could accomplish. You could, of course, create really long scrolls, but that would make finding particular passages difficult. Scrolls are easy to make and hard to use, codices are hard to make and easy to use; so once it became desirable to mass-produce books that could be used frequently, codices win, especially once the process could be aided mechanically. --Jayron32 04:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"Scrolls are a pain in the ass." - I disagree. As I'm reading a long text, such as this one, I use my wheel to scroll up and down, rather than the PgUp and PgDn keys. I don't think I'm the only one. — Sebastian 05:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but this is not paper wound around sticks of wood. To scroll, you drag your index finger across a little wheel. Had the ancients been able to wind through scrolls so easily, they may have not had need for codices. Now, take a 500 page codex and put it on a single sheet of paper, wind it around two sticks, and find chapter 17. Then skip ahead to Chapter 25. Then go back to cross reference something in chapter 12. Not so fun with a real scroll. --Jayron32 05:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would keep 35 chapters in one scroll; they're usually kept one chapter per scroll and stashed away neatly in shelves. The only disadvantage of that is that it takes more space to store. But conversely, you can do some things with scrolls that you can't with books. I, for one, always wished to have this as a real scroll, not just in a book. — Sebastian 06:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Carving words on boulders is best... rock is more durable than paper. Granted portability is a bit of an issue, but portability is over-rated anyway... no need to bring the text to the readers when it is easier to bring readers to the text (readers are self-portable). And with a boulder there is less chance of accidentally leaving your important presentation behind in the taxi. Blueboar (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Detectives series Scandanavia England Netherlands Belgium

How many fictional detectives are there in Scandinavian literature of crime or mystery fiction? So far, I know one and that is Kurt Wallander of Sweden. How many fictional detectives are there in British literature of crime or mystery fiction? So far, I know two and they Miss Marple and Hercule Poirot and Sherlock Holmes of course. How many fictional detectives are there in Dutch literature of crime or mystery fiction? So far, I know one that is Grijpstra and De Gier. Is there any fictional detectives in Belgian literature of crime or mystery fiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.97 (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Fictional detectives is crying out for some subcategories by nationality... --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The British category alone would be huge: Colin Dexter (Inspector Morse), P. D. James (Inspector Dalgleish). In fact, there is a whole category just for the English writers, most of whom have at least one repeating detective character. Bielle (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a similar category for the Scottish writers. Bielle (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't Van der Valk based in Holland? I can't remember, I was only young at the time... --TammyMoet (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm perhaps a little older and remember that indeed it was, TammyMoet.

Detective/crime fiction is a very popular genre in many cultures (and I doubt that most of it is translated between languages), so the answers to the OP's question ("How many . . .") will likely run from at least dozens to hundreds or even thousands for each 'national' literature. Random responders' random suggestions here will not give anything like a true picture - I could (if I had the time) probably compile a list running close to a hundred (mostly British) just from the books on my own shelves, and I'm not even primarily a detective fiction fan (SF & Fantasy being my main interest). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.98 (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A E W Mason's Inspector Hanaud Kittybrewster ☎ 11:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If we're allowed TV shows, there is Sarah Lund from Denmark in The Killing (Danish TV series). --Viennese Waltz 12:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Lisbeth Salander and Mikael Blomkvist, the main characters in the Millennium series from Sweden. He's an investigative journalist and she's a hacker, which makes them both detectives of a sort. --Viennese Waltz 12:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I thought of them and rejected them. Also a certain French priest. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Agaton Sax from Sweden.
Sleigh (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Inspector Clouseau Kittybrewster ☎ 15:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

He's French. --Viennese Waltz 15:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No, please don't add the tv shows. I only want the novel series that features the main fictional detective like Kurt Wallander of the Wallander series, and Grijpstra and De Gier of the Amsterdam Cops series. 65.92.153.97. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.163 (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Van der Valk article says "Based on the characters and atmosphere (but not the plots) of the novels of Nicolas Freeling, the first series was shown in 1972". I suspect many TV series will have a similar basis. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Louis XIIII

Roman numerals#IIII on clocks says "Louis XIV, king of France, who preferred IIII over IV, ordered his clockmakers to produce clocks with IIII and not IV, and thus it has remained." If that is so, did he have his subjects write his number as XIIII, as well? — Sebastian 05:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This is but one of a number of "suggested explanations" for why we have IIII and not IV on clocks. I realise this bit of info is sourced, but it's to a 1947 book and I seriously doubt its veracity if we can't find anything more modern, or alternatively, from Louis XIV's time, to confirm it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Part of why I was asking this was because this bit adds to my mistrust in the source. — Sebastian 06:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The whole "smaller unit to the left = subtraction" convention in Roman numerals (i.e. IV, IX, XL, XC, CD, CM etc.) was more medieval than ancient Roman, and there has been a certain degree of variability down through the centuries... AnonMoos (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, even certain roman numerals like D and M are relatively modern inventions, originally IƆ was 500 and CIƆ was 1000. I think typographers originally started using D and M to refer to these, so as to use less type. --Jayron32 14:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Pyongyang Overwhelmed with Grief at Demise of Kim Jong Il

What to make of these videos: http://www.kcna.kp/userAction.do?action=videoindex&lang=eng&newsyear=2011&newsno=1281141 ?

I don't think people were that upset about Princess Diana passing! Is this legitimate? Staged? Double-think? The Masked Booby (talk) 07:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If there's one pervasive problem I see in how people talk about North Korea, it's that they apply their own feelings, their own understanding of the world, to North Korean citizens. They've lived in a very, very different environment from any of us, so they are, you could say 'wired up' differently. The result being that people assume they are being insincere, or are crazy, or addled from years of oppression. Suffice to say, I don't think it's that simple. You can hear of older generations of Russians hankering for the days of Stalinist rule; not everyone objects as strenuously to totalitarianism as we Westerners like to think they should. Perhaps there's some comfort in having the boundaries of your life strictly limited; you don't have to think or worry too much, and perhaps you won't be tormented by unfulfilled ambition. Vranak (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

While many people experience spontaneous and demonstrative grief on the death of their country's leader, I would suggest that evidence within that video indicates that the gathering filmed was relatively small by protest standards; there is also some evidence (glasses frames, etc.) that the people in the video are part of the nomenklatura of juche society. The beneficiaries of juche would be more likely to experience grief, particularly as it is an acceptable way for them to express their fears, doubts and insecurities in a time of leadership change. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I fear that both the above replies miss the point. It is perfectly clear from the video that the crying is fake, acted, sham, a put-up job. They were probably told to go out there and pretend to cry for the cameras. --Viennese Waltz 08:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There are people in that video genuinely crying, there are people who've worked themselves up to genuine crying, there are people who've worked themselves up to fake crying, and there are people hoping that the poor quality of their crying will be accepted because of their willingness to cry in public. Go play soapbox games elsewhere. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless one of you is Dr. Cal Lightman, quit speculating about if people are "really" crying or not. The honest question is how many people truly believe the party line, how many absolutely don't, and how many, I suspect the silent majority, play along so they can get along, as with many compelled social norms. Shadowjams (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There were equally extraordinary scenes of grief at the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a totalitarian leader who was equally demonised by the West (although Iranians have very different standards of behaviour at funerals compared to British or Americans; I'm not sure what Koreans normally do). If the British media's confused and inconstant obsession with Diana (who was demonised as often as praised) can make British people react so passionately to her death, think how much more passionately they'll react if you have a deliberate and orchestrated propaganda scheme telling you every day how wonderful the leader is. Additionally, Kim's death was very sudden, which will intensify reactions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Many people in the Soviet Union were genuinely upset and worried for the future when Stalin died (though not necessarily inclined to great public shows of weeping)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Name origins

I'm a bit of a Star Trek fan. So when I recently saw Alexander Rodchenko's name for the first time, it reminded me of Alexander Rozhenko. This led me to a couple questions:

1. Are the two surnames pronounced the same?
2. Is there any evidence that the ST character got his name from the writers due to the sculptor?

I've looked in the usual places but haven't been able to find anything that links the two. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 11:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's Cyrillic "Родченко" vs. "Роженко", I don't think they'd be pronounced the same in any language that I know about... AnonMoos (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

to know about humanity and sexual questions

hello sir,

que:1) i am extremely eager to know the exact(perfect) definition of honesty.

que:2)Is sexuality, i mean to watch sexual movies and having sex to the another person (not our spouse) is fair or sin?

i am studied in diploma in mechanical engineering and i am not married but i want to know these questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.99.144.158 (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

See honesty and sexual intercourse. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The answer to your second question will very much depend on your personal morality and, perhaps, your religious faith. These are not questions with simple yes/no answers. --Viennese Waltz 14:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Pornography, Premarital sex and Infidelity mention some of the views. Your IP address is Indian so you may also be interested in Category:Sexuality in India. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Convicting John Doe

If some unknown person gets caught, but not identified, maybe because he does reveal his namel, how can he be charged and convicted? Would the government issue a new name for him? 88.8.69.150 (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

First, I think you meant to write "does not reveal his name". This has come up before, see here for a lengthy discussion based on English law (other countries will obviously vary). I'm fairly sure there was a more recent discussion on this topic as well, but I can't find it right now. --Viennese Waltz 15:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Found it, here you go. --Viennese Waltz 15:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Bharatiya Janata Party Khalistan movement

Is BJP against the Khalistan independence movement despite they were against the 1984 anti-Sikh riot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.163 (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Pro-violence murals in Northern Ireland

Excuse my total ignorance here, but matters Northern Irish are not my strong point.

When the media discusses matters Northern Ireland, they often print photos of pro-IRA murals in Belfast. These murals openly glorify violence and guns. Why are they tolerated by the Northern-Irish government? I can't easily imagine Israel, for example, allowing pro-Hamas terrorism murals to be left long in East Jerusalem without getting covered up. And if it does happen, it shouldn't!

I have no problem with murals promoting a "united Ireland", but I never understood how depictions glorifying guns, balaclavas, and murderous violence are allowed to exist without being disturbed. (I have the same problem with murals glorifying anti-catholic or pro-loyalist violence - I'm not being sectarian here). In most countries, you'd be done for incitement, I would think, if you produced such material. What am I missing here? Why are blatantly pro-violence murals tolerated by the authorities, without being covered over? 203.45.95.236 (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)