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

February 3

Indian names used by Muslims

Which surnames of India, whether it is Gujarati, Oriya, Marathi, or Punjabi is used by Muslims only like Patel, Chaudhuri, etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.76 (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Which districts of India Muslims?

Which districts of India have significant Muslim population like Murshidabad district of West Bengal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.76 (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

See Template:Indian_Muslim - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Baptist Children

Hi folks, I hope you can help me with this: if I am describing someone who attended a Baptist church with his family when he was a child, should I say he was A. "raised as a Baptist" or B. "he was raised Baptist". I tend to hear B. used a lot, but primarily in colloquial speech (though, where I live, there are a lot more people who say they were raised Catholic than Baptist) but I'm not sure which would be preferred in Featured Article quality prose (which is what I'm shooting for here). Or is this one of those things where both are acceptable? Mark Arsten (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I would go with A on the philosophy that if you know a phrasing is likely to cause comment at FAC, and unless you feel really strongly about it, go with the more conventional phrasing, which is A. B I think I would expect to see in speech.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

B is never correct, imo. The adjective (Baptist, Catholic, etc) applies to the relevant Church and things associated with it, such as Baptist teachings, Baptist practices etc. However, an individual is not "Baptist", but "a Baptist", meaning "a member of the Baptist Church", just like "a Rotarian" is "a member of Rotary". We don't say that so and so is "Rotarian". In any case, either of your options is preferable to the silly expression "He was born (a) Baptist". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I read B as using "Baptist" as an adverb, rather than an adjective. That is, it's describing how he was raised (with Baptist ideology). Thus I would tend toward interpreting A as a simple statement of membership (while he was being raised, he was a member of/attended a Baptist church), and B as more of a statement of ideological association (while he was being raised, he held/believed in/was indoctrinated with the values/ideals of the Baptist church). I might be splitting hairs here, though. -- 140.142.20.101 (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you say someone was "raised Jewish" or "raised a Jew"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, well, thanks for setting me straight on this. In the article we have it "as a Baptist" so I will be sure not to change it. It just struck me as a bit odd since I am so used to hearing it the other way. I guess this is one of those times where you just can't trust the Huffington Post style guide! Mark Arsten (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"Indoctrinated as a Baptist", according to Richard Dawkins. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, Richard Dawkins is not typically involved in FA discussions: I doubt he would be able to conform to NPOV, and would probably bring up his opposition to religion in completely irrelevant discussions. 86.166.41.126 (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Wikipedia principles, that was a comment that did not demonstrate AGF. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Criminal politicians

What has been the percentage number of MPs in jail in recent years compared to the average for the general population? If Chris Huhne is jailed will that effect the result? SpinningSpark 10:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

a) I have no idea, but to clarify - do you mean just for Britain, for all countries with a Westminster system, or for all countries with elected governments? b) Yes, whatever the percentage is, it will increase.Colonel Tom 10:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear, I meant for the UK, I thought the link to Huhne would imply that, although answers for other countries would be interesting also. I know that jailing Huhne would increase the statistic (by one), but what I was after is would it cause a change from less politicians are jailed than the general population to more politicians are jailed. Perfectly possible that this strange result could come about given the small number of MPs and the consequently large percentage change that one would make. To be even more specific, I am looking for person-years in jail per 1000 population over a ten or twenty year period. SpinningSpark 12:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Depends a bit. Most MPs who ended up in jail did so over the expenses scandal, and by the time they were sentenced they'd been voted out, kicked out or resigned. If we're going for people arrested for crimes committed while they were MPs, even if they weren't MPs at the time they were jailed, then Elliot Morley, David Chaytor, Jim Devine, Margaret Moran and Eric Illsley. Illsley is the only one who was still an MP at the time he was found guilty. Before that, Jonathan Aitken was jailed in 1999 for perjury committed while he was an MP. Jeffrey Archer was also jailed in 2001, but though he had been an MP, he wasn't at the time he committed the crime. Those are all the recent cases. From the 2005-2010 parliament, which had 646 MPs in it, 5 were jailed (so far), which is 0.77% of the population of politicians. If Hulne is jailed, that'll rise to 0.92% (if Denis MacShane is also jailed, that'd push it to over 1%). Over the whole decade, that number will be smaller. I can't find the exact numbers, but I'd guess there have been about 1200 MPs between 2001 and 2010, so that's a rough figure of something like 0.4%. According to our article United Kingdom prison population, the percentage of the UK population in jail as a whole is 0.14%. So yes, in recent years, MPs make a disproportionate number of our prison population. Smurrayinchester 13:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Just realised I made a mistake, and Margaret Moran hasn't been jailed - she was deemed psychiatrically unfit for trial and the case was adjourned. That's 4 out of 646, not 5, which is 0.62% Smurrayinchester 16:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Were all four of those imprisoned at the same time, however? If not, you'd really need to compare it to the proportion of the population imprisoned at any point between 2005-2010, which is probably comfortably more than 0.14% Shimgray | talk | 21:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Romney/Bush, but not as we know it

So there is significant speculation that Mitt Romney will win the Republican nomination and possibly make Jeb Bush his running mate. My question isn't about that, the reference desk isn't a crystal ball etc. My questions are about the (much less speculated) idea that Romney might make George W. Bush his running mate. My questions are this:

1. Is he allowed to do this? Is there any restriction on placing former Presidents as a VP candidate on the ticket?

2. Has this ever happened?

3. Say he is allowed, and it does happen. The Romney/Bush ticket wins the election, but then Romney dies in office. What happens? George W. has already been President twice, so he can't be again. Does he have to resign? Or is he simply skipped in the order of succession, and the Speaker of the House leapfrogs him into the hot seat? Or is the answer that because of this scenario he can't be a VP candidate at all, in which case we could have stopped at question 1. Or is this a hitherto unforeseen scenario that allows a president to serve many terms (doubtful)?

Many thanks everyone,

86.166.191.40 (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

On a side note: this story of George W. Bush as VP is a known urban legend. 212.170.181.95 (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a somewhat open question. See Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution#Interaction_with_the_Twelfth_Amendment. On face value, it would be legal, as the 22nd only restricts election to the office, not some other way of becoming president, and thus the 12th does not apply. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting. I liked to jokingly speculate in the past how a certain President was put in place so a certain vice-president could take over after just over 2 years so they could serve for the maximum (nearly) 10 years, but the president got so popular the first term that had to be abandonded, then so unpopular the second term, the VP didn't want to take over. If this suggestion is correct it seems this complicated scenario isn't necessary. The US's Putin-esque president can be President for life by having a bunch of dummy presidents to be elected president for a day before stepping down. Actually may be to keep things simple the president can take his oath of office then announce he's stepping down. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

He wouldn't even have to go that far. He becomes President at noon on January 20; the swearing-in is to enable him to execute the duties of the office, but if he had no intention of executing any of the duties, he could just skip that step. At 12:01 pm he could announce he'd changed his mind about the whole thing and the person who'd been VP for the past minute will now be sworn in as president instead. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The Democrats would certainly challenge the certificates signed by the Bush electors on the ground they designated an ineligible person. This would happen in the joint session for the counting. I imagine that unlike in 2001, they would find a senator and a representative to make the challenge (no senator was willing in 2001). If they were voided, then the choice would devolve on the Senate per the Constitution. It would never reach the courts, it is a political question. (yes, there would be many court cases filed, but I doubt they would get anywhere). It would be a tremendous distraction throughout the campaign. And to my mind, the plain language of the 12th and 22nd Amendments rules this out. It would cost the Republicans votes among their base. This would never happen. And no former president has ever run for vice president since the 22nd Amendment became effective, though there was talk about a Reagan/Ford ticket in 1980.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Another reason this would never happen is that it's hard to imagine a presidential candidate--with all the ego that implies--ever upstaging themself in this manner. Meelar (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I think that Romney would recognize that the Bush name would be a liability on the ticket. There have already been two Bushes who ushered in nasty recessions, and the name does not have the best associations for most of the public. Marco polo (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the Democrats would love a Bush on the ticket. Any Bush. The name association is still so unpleasant with liberals and moderates. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Legally this can happen. To serve as Vice-president one must meet all the requirements to be president. Though George W. Bush is not eligible to be elected president, he can serve two additional years. Therefore, if Romney is elected, then dies, Bush can serve for two years until he himself must resign. The same scenario can apply to Bill Clinton.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is correct. There is no requirement that a president cannot have served 15 or even 20 years to be president. The rule is that he cannot be elected to become president if he has already been elected twice, or if he has served at least 1.5 terms. Note the difference between "serves" and "is elected". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think so, William. If you read the texts of the two amendments, you could make a case for it being constitutional, or unconstitutional; my own interpretation is that according to the precise wording, it would be legal, but it probably violates the intent. But there's no way to interpret things in such a way that it would be OK, but that Bush would have to resign halfway thru the third term. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A similar scenario: A former 2-term President becomes Speaker of the House, and the President and Vice-president are incapacitated. Does the order of succession skip the Speaker? In this case, it seems to me that he would clearly become President again, as he would not be violating either amendment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. The Presidential Succession Act says the relevant provisions "shall apply only to such officers as are eligible to the office of President under the Constitution. " That doesn't answer that many questions. If I recall discussion of this point when Kissinger was SecState, the papers said he would not be eligible. Remember, for part of that time there was no VP (twice) and so he was putatively fourth in line.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The same thing would apply if the Speaker of the House were not a natural-born US citizen. They could be eligible for the Speakership, but not for the Presidency. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing. They couldn't succeed to the Presidency if they met one of the criteria in the Constitution that excludes you from being President, but in this case (unlike Kissinger) they would only meet the criteria that excludes you from being elected President. I suppose it's possible the 22nd Amendment could be read in such a way that it prevents the ex-President being elected Vice-President, but I don't see how it could prevent him from being elected a Representative, and then chosen to be Speaker. And once he's Speaker, in the scenario I describe, I don't see what provision would prevent him from succeeding to the Presidency. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It seems he can serve indefinitely as long as someone else is elected.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It's capable of interpretation either way. And there's the added complication of the 25th Amendment. What if there's a vacancy in the vice presidency? Can the President nominate Bush or Clinton, and can they take office if confirmed by the 2/3 vote of each house?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Say Biden's ticker gives out and Obama says "I'm nominating Clinton for Vice President—no, not you, Hillary!" That is, to fill out the remainder of Biden's term if confirmed by Congress, not for election to a new term. Set it in 2014.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the issue here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If Americans are so in love with the idea of a single, written constitution, why have they written such a bad one? It's ridiculously vague and open to a wide variety of interpretations (and not just on this topic). Were there not lawyers involved in the drafting of the original document and the various amendments that should have known how to write an unambiguous legal document? --Tango (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The Founders intentionally made the constitution vague: it was intended as a skeleton document, a baseline from which other laws could be based as need and changing times required. in fact, the move towards constitutional literalism (which has been a big thing over the past 20 years or so) is deeply antithetical to the wishes of the founders, who would have been the first to assert that they did not have the wisdom to dictate what people 200 years in the future would need or want.

this is the tricky part of establishing a lasting democratic state:the goal is to protect the principles that lie behind the written text, which means that sometimes the written text needs to change or be reinterpreted in order to conform the the same principles in changing times. But it can't be too malleable, otherwise it will be reinterpreted or changed in ways that defeat its underlying principles. it's always a rough line to ride. --Ludwigs2 22:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well said... that's the tricky part of writing Wikipedia's policy as well. Blueboar (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

IMHO the tricky part of establishing a lasting democratic state is basic education and food. A Democracy has to rest upon educated and informed citizens and not text written upon pieces of paper which can be endlessly reinterpreted by lawyers, politicians, intellectuals and fools. It is well-informed citizens who will demand rights protected by fair laws for everybody and who will vote wisely. Well-informed citizens will know what is wrong and what is right. They will be outraged and will go to the barricades if their government goes against the rights and freedoms of the citizenry and of citizens of other nations. Have not no doubt: the true enemies of democracy are Ignorance, which largely rests upon lack of education and Disinformation supported by selective censorship. Ignorant disinformed masses will be easily manipulated into voting poorly, no matter if their national constitution is the finest creation of the ages (no comments about the quality of the US constitution which was written in 1787 - a fine document of its time).

And food. A democracy is worth absolutely nothing if the masses lack food. A starving people is a desperate people. A desperate people will support anyone with an easy solution, no matter the price.

That's the true reason why dictatorships censor and manipulate information. They are afraid of their own citizens and want to narrow their minds. Without truly having access to the whole information those can't decide wisely, can they? Flamarande (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind also that there weren't a ton of precedents for establishing a working democracy at the time, even an incomplete and hideously flawed one like the US circa 1787. The constitution is essentially an alpha or early beta version, you'd expect a few bugs (mine personal bete noir is the Senate). Meelar (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This idea that the US was unusual in its democracy at its founding is completely untrue. The US was no more democratic that numerous other countries at that time. --Tango (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is quite correct. If you restrict the Demos to male, white, and somewhat affluent, then the early US was quite democratic. And the colonies had a fairly large fraction of "somewhat affluent" people. Which other countries did you have in mind? Britain had a parliament, but a horribly undemocratic way of electing members. Most other countries did not even have an effective parliament. Anyways, I think one of Jefferson's greatest achievements was that he wrote "that all men are created equal", although his mental model probably equated that with "that all freeborn male Englishmen are created equal". The second phrase does not quite have the same timeless ring... ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Tango, I am not a proponent of American exceptionalism, but I challenge you on your "numerous" claim. At the time the U.S. Constitution was enacted, almost half of white men were qualified to vote. That number amounted to at least a third of the adult male population. By present-day standards, that doesn't sound very democratic, but I challenge you to name more than a handful of countries that had a remotely democratic system with more liberal suffrage in 1783. I'll start your list: Iceland, Switzerland, ... In fact, I don't think that you will find many countries other than these two small European countries in which more than a third of adult males had a voice in government at that time. Certainly not Britain (with its completely undemocratic House of Lords) before the Reform Act of 1832. By the time of the Reform Act of 1832, incidentally, the United States already had universal suffrage for white men (or about 80% of the male population), something that Britain did not achieve until the 20th century. Of course, the racial restrictions on voting were odious, but so were class restrictions, which affected a much larger share of the population in Britain. Gender restrictions were equally odious, but there was hardly a country without those until the 20th century. Marco polo (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What really sets the US apart (IMO) is that it was the first time that any collectivity tried to create a society based on liberal principles from the ground up, rather than trying to graft liberal institutions onto an illiberal framework. I mean, just the idea that a bunch of people sat down in a room with the question "How do we want to govern ourselves?", and tried to answer it, is more or less phenomenal. They made mistakes: the 3/5ths compromise, various forms of institutional distrust of the populace, the presidency (we have a president because the CC was afraid people would revolt if they didn't have a king-substitute, but it was a lousy idea from the get-go). But all-in-all it was a rare moment in history.

Not sure I'd categorize the 3/5 compromise as a mistake. Given that representation in the House was going to be proportional, and that slavery was going to be allowed, should slaveholders have been given disproportional political strength by allowing them to count their obviously non-voting property as their political constituency as well? In other words, should a man with ten slaves get 11 votes (or, at least, shares of a Congressman)? The anti-slavery forces wanted slaves not to be counted at all (for the purpose of representation); the pro-slavery forces wanted them to be fully counted. Complicated. But not in the direction most people think. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as the 'white/male' thing, the history of liberalism is one of expansion. Basically it starts with propertied white males saying to aristocrats "Hey, we're no more and no less deserving than you are," and then group after group standing up and saying "Hey, us too!" You can't expect people to realize immediately that people different from them are like to them in the ways that count, but once you start infusing a society with liberal ideals egalitarianism tends to spread. democratization is a generational project; it's been over 200 years and the US still hasn't fully gotten it, but time rolls on. --Ludwigs2 07:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

So who is next? Computers, dolphins or great apes? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Curiously, I think computers have a better shot at citizenship than intelligent animals, due to the "playing god" aspect of the latter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

just like any other group, whichever one stands up and demands its rights will have a fair shot. --Ludwigs2 18:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)}}

The US may have had lower property requirements than, say, Britain, but it was still just wealthy white men that could vote. The Senate was no more elected than the House of Lords (although the selection was done by the state governments rather than the national government as it was and is in Britain, which is an improvement). The US may have been more democratic by degree, but the system the founders came up with is very similar to the systems used elsewhere. The idea that they didn't have any precedents to follow is untrue - they very much followed the precedents set by Britain and other European countries. --Tango (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. was about 50 years ahead of Britain -- in the 1780s being roughly comparable to Britain in 1832, and during the Jacksonian era of the 1830s coming close to universal white manhood suffrage, comparable to 1884 Britain (the main quasi-patrician survivals being Rhode Island prior to the Dorr Rebellion, and no popular election for the presidency in South Carolina until 1868). AnonMoos (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The House of Lords contained lots of un(s)elected members until 1999: all those hereditaries that were not created lords themselves. And a new government couldn't/cannot replace those selected by previous governments. Selecting someone just for 6 years (as in the Senate) seems a vast improvement over selection for life and beyond, as in the HoL, to me. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as "One Man, One Vote". The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote. - Terry Pratchett. Blueboar (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Which melody is this?

Dear colleagues,

Does anyone know the name of this meloday in that documentary:

• here at 4:07 minutes
• here at 10:03 minutes. (both is the same)

The meloday itsself can be heard shortly, then it turns to the background as the speaker begins to talk.

Thanks for help, Jerchel (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't recognize it, but it sounds like part of a string quartet. Looie496 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not one of the pieces listed in the credits (end of part 8, 5:24) unless it's a part of Prokofiev's Ivan the Terrible that I don't recognize (I don't think it is). Usually they list everything in the credits. I think it was composed for the documentary, since the music under the closing credits clearly was. Perhaps someone else will recognize it if I'm wrong. Antandrus (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Style issue

When a person's name uses the lower case 'de' (e.g. Eamon de Valera or Reginald de Veulle), what is the MoS format when the first name is dropped re: capitalising the 'de'?

Appears that if is starts a sentence it is capitalised - e.g. "De Valera was a leader of Ireland's struggle for independence..." but if mid-sentence, lower case is used e.g. "To strengthen his position against the opposition in the Dáil and Seanad, de Valera called a snap election...".

However, on Thomas de Quincey the surname is nearly always capitalised to De Quincey, e.g. "In 1800, De Quincey, aged fifteen...".

Just interested in the correct format for style. Londonclanger (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The relevant style guide is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters, but it doesn't give an answer to this question. There is a lot of (rather heated) discussion about the guide, including proper nouns, on the talk page. You could ask there, but having skimmed a bit of the discussion, I would advise staying well clear! --Tango (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

We used to have far more detailed advice somewhere. It's complicated; for example the Dutch and Flemish treatments are slightly different for both "de" and Van (Dutch) - contrast with von. But, yes, always a capital at the start of a sentence, and then see what sources do. Typically all mid-sentence uses will be consiistent, but I think that doesn't work for all languages. Johnbod (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether to capitalize it in the name (Foo de Bar vs. Foo De Bar) is actually a WP:NCP question, and it generally boils down to "follow the preference of the subject". Usage has never been consistent, though particular patterns are more common in particular areas, so educated guesses can be made. But we're an encyclopedia, so we're supposed to use reliable sources to find out, not guess. :-) With regard to Thomas de Quincey, if that is the real, sourced spelling, then "In 1800, De Quincey, aged fifteen..." is just plain wrong. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: This even the case when the de-name appears at the beginning of a longer proper noun (at least in English and Spanish; I can't speak for French, Dutch, etc. usage), e.g. the de Young Museum in San Francisco. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 19:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In French it depends on the length of the name: De Thou but de Tocqueville. Idioms for the New York Dutch (Van Buren) differ from those in Holland. The most useful guidance may be to follow what reliable sources do. JCScaliger (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The Oxford DNB capitalizes Thomas Penson De Quincey (and Augustus De Morgan) even in the full name. Therefore the sentence form should be De Quincey everywhere. (They also imply that it was De Quincey's own affectation, not shared with his family; if so, there's no reason to expect it to follow French custom.) JCScaliger (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Pope Urban VI

According to our article Pope Urban VI moved from Perugia with thousands of troops in August 1388 to Rome. How many thousands?--LordGorval (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I could find no statement of how many soldiers accompanied him at Google Book search. Many sources only offer an inadequate "snippet view." Edison (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

February 4

Where does Apple have its cash?

According to this article, Apple has about $97.6 billion. I didn't see in the article in exactly what format those holdings are. Is it most likely a corporate money market account? A business savings account? Bars of gold in a heavily-guarded underground fortress in a classified location? :) 69.243.220.115 (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC) .

According to [[1]]: that's all cash reserved. The market capitalization is way above that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.70.5 (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Companies usually talk about "cash and cash equivalents". You wouldn't hold billions of dollars in cash, it will be in cash equivalents - lots of short-term treasury bonds, that sort of thing (read the article I linked to for more examples). --Tango (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It might be helpful to note, in this sense, what it cash "is not." Realestate (value of office buildings), patents, in some cases the "value" of the employees, etc.. These are examples of things you cannot readily "cash out" at the bank, and often comprise the majority of "value" of a company like Apple. Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 03:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

But as to specifically "where" Apple keeps their cash, I'd guess the closest answer is on spreadsheets in their accounting office. Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 03:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Most of this amount (about two thirds) is in offshore accounts and can't be transferred stateside without having to pay corporate tax on it. (Multinationals like Apple strongly dislike paying taxes to Uncle Sam. They prefer keeping foreign profits parked in offshore accounts and waiting for a corporate tax reform, or at least the day when Washington, DC swings strongly pro-ultrarichconservative and congressmen can be bribedlobbied to pass a tax holiday, thus allowing the multinational to repatriate profits without any tax liability.) Specifics, like where exactly these offshore accounts are or what is in them, are unavailable. Of the remaining one third, most is in short-term bonds. About 5% of the total is in accounts receivable, that is, in the form of yet-unpaid customer invoices.--Itinerant1 (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

So if the form of the money in the Caymans is bits on a server there, why are physical servers in that part of the world 1) believed to be safe from physical harm by hurricanes or humans who would come and physically harm them (does the Caymans have a strong and well-funded military and police infrastructure I don't know about?) and 2) believed (they're pretty much black boxes to outsiders both technically and as far as accountwise because of their laws) to be safe from corruption within their organization? 68.10.241.59(talk) 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that Apple keeps its money in the Caymans. That's what regular people think when they hear "offshore", yes, but, in the case of Apple, money is simply in countries where it does a lot of business, like China or Ireland.--Itinerant1 (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I read what 68 said as wondering about the Caymans in general as being a place many have billions stored, not specifically Apple. Why is that little nation so physically safe for the servers and how are extremely high power bankers and techies that maintain the servers safe there, especially when many, many billions are involved? 69.243.220.115 (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Even that which if held offshore won't be in conventional cash, it will be in short-term bonds, etc., too. --Tango (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Apple certainly engages professional money managers, either in house or more likely outside, to aggressively manage its cash, based on its corporate plans which are not known to us. Obviously we can get some sense of this by viewing their current assets on their balance sheets, but if they know they are not likely to need money soon, they can let it out a little longer. Or a lot longer. Suffice it to say they hire only the best, whether in Cupertino or New York.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Patel as a common name for hotel owners

I am involved in the hotel industry. As such, I know and am friendly with quite a lot of Indian fellows with the surname "Patel." Is there some reason this name is so common in the industry? I feel uncomfortable broaching the subject with my Patel friends, but I am also extremely curious about the common-place of the name. One note: I have, on a couple of out-of-work occasions, heard it mentioned in casual conversation such statements like, " I wasn't 'always' a Patel, you know?" or (in mentioning a third party) "He's now part of the Patel family." So I don't know if these are just jests based on the commonplace of the name, or are true indications that the name itself has some sort of status quality (hotelier?) unlike traditional Eruopean surnames, which really hold no meaning anymore. (Like "Smith" I mean how many "Smiths" do you know that are really blacksmiths.") So, in short: Patel = hotel? What's up with that? Insights appreciated. Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 04:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Where? A little reading and guessing suggests you're in the USA. Is it only there you're talking about, because I've never met a hotel owner called Patel in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I am in the U.S. southeast, but from attending hotel conventions, I think this is a pretty widespread occurence in the U.S. Or maybe it's just a big coincindence. The article Patel makes mentions of the Pate/Motel connection, but does not really offer much of a reason why except that the caste established a niche in the U.S. hotel community 50 years (or more ago). I'm looking for more info on the persistence of this pehnomena (in the U.S.). Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 05:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's mainly because the sort of hotels that are primarily owned by Gujuratis have such low profit margins that only people who run businesses using Gururati methods can make any money off them. Looie496 (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That reads like a racist comment, Looie496. I would like to see some serious citations, or a deletion. Bielle (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, most of the Patel's I know are extremely successful in the industry. But the above comment by Looie is a good example of why I mentioned that I was uncomfortable broaching the subject with my Patel friends...it is a loaded question if the context is not correct. I was hoping for more of an academic response. Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 05:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

See our article Patel, and [2] which has "The name has become so ingrained in the hotel industry that many people believe Patel is an Indian word meaning "hotel." In fact, Patel evolved from ancient India, where record keepers were appointed to keep track of crops planted on a parcel of land, or a pat. Many Patels were literally born to sell under the Indian caste system that was designed to allow people to work according to their natural tendencies. Patels fall into the Vaishya or Vaisya, a merchant caste." I had heard before that "Patel" meant "Innkeeper" but I guess that is urban legend, lol. Heiro 05:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have read/heard all of that before asking here. But nothing addresses the "why". For example, if a group of Patels got in to the industry back in the 60s and their succesive family members grew into a hotel empire....then GREAT, that would answer my question. Or if the name has become so synonymous with hotel operation, that Indian owners adopt the name as a status symbol....then that would be a great answer too. But that is what I am looking for: the "why." Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 05:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting phenomenon. I think your first guess is right. The wikipedia article says "A sizable number of Indian immigrants to the United States came in the 1960s and 1970s, when the motel industry was booming. Many of them bought up undervalued and dilapidated properties and turned them into businesses. As many as 60% of mid-sized motels and hotel properties, all over the US, are owned by the people of Indian origin. Of this nearly one-third have the surname Patel - a popular one among Indian Gujaratis(those that came from Gujarat)." I think this answers your question. According to this [3] article, first generation Patels left Gujarat to work as servants in African British Colonies, then immigrated due to political factors. 40% of Patels immigrated to London after leaving Africa, then came back to US for hotel business. So the present-day Patels are just descendants of the 1960s-70s Patel immigrants. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hallelujah! Here is a BBC article which has a "Roots and riches" section that perfectly answers your question. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

And another BBC article Kiss and Patel which says: "The Patel diaspora is not only found in the UK, where they are traditionally linked with corner shops, but also the US where they tend to be associated with the motel business. In both cases it meant they had a business and a home combined." Apparently, Patel is the 24th most common surname in England & Wales[4]. Alansplodge (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Try this A Patel Motel Cartel? It postulates 2 convergent factors, loosening of American immigration laws in the 1960s and 70s and a retiring crop of post WW2 era hotel owners, which is also something I read elsewhere, but it was rather forumy so I didn't bother including it here. Heiro 06:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe someone would like to take the 2 or 4 decent sources we've produced here and flesh out our article? It could use some sources, I noticed a lot of cite needed tags, especially the section dealing with this subject. Heiro 06:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

War of the Austrian Succession and France

During the beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession, what or who influenced France to join in war with Prussia against Austria? Was it mostly Frederick the Great? Thanks! 64.229.180.189 (talk) 06:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This page says .."The French entered into the war between Austria and Prussia as an opportunistic venture. She was the largest European rival of the Hapsburg empire, and had opposed Austria in every war for the last century." Our article on the Silesian Wars (the opening hostilities of the War of Austrian Succession) agrees: "The shared objective within the alliance was the destruction or at least the diminution of the Habsburg Monarchy and of its dominant influence over the other German states." Alansplodge (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you need to be a CEO

Hi, what skills do you need to be a CEO? I know there was a similar question at the Miscellaneous desk a couple of years back, but it isn't the same. I want to know if they are more skilful than the rest of us, or if it's just a case of, well, someone has to do it. IBE (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

And to add to that, do you generally need business contacts to get such a position at a large company ? (Obviously anybody can set up their own pretzel stand and declare themself CEO.) StuRat (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the business contacts make up a very large part of it. To begin with, to become a CEO you have to convince a company board that you have what's needed. That isn't achieved in a job interview. It's achieved over a whole career. It's quite likely that there's many equally or more talented people out there, but they won't get the gig because the board has never heard of them. One has to already be part of the system. HiLo48 (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is the "old boys network" that keeps women and minorities out. StuRat (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I wrote a lot that was apparently lost in an edit conflict (maybe someone can find it?) Then I wanted to add just this:

Also note that the CEO ultimately answers to the board who have a 'fiduciary responsibility' to maximize shareholder value. So although the CEO can do anything, and anything that is done is with the CEO at its head (much as the President is at the head of the chain of command of all of the armed forces of the United States), is their responsibility, as most people understand it today that responsibility is "to maximize shareholder value". 188.156.228.116 (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

When I get an edit conflict, I hit the "Back" button on the browser, cut the text I just typed, pick "Project page" at the top to load the latest version of the page, pick section "Edit" again, then paste the old text back in. StuRat (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

CEOs are supposed to have managerial experience, business connections, and a 5000-mile view of the industry. A CEO of a large company is supposed to have a good understanding of all intricacies of managing a hierarchy with large numbers of people under him, the kind that usually can't be taught in school and comes from experience in upper management. An important part of it is being able to delegate skills, that is to hire the right kinds of people to do lower-level jobs and to evaluate their performance.

It is common for CEOs of large companies to come from the background that has absolutely no relation to their industry. (Unless the CEO is one of the founders or he raises through the ranks within his own company, that's practically the norm.) That's because their skills are managerial rather than practical, and thus easily transferrable between companies. Significant numbers have college degrees in economics or humanities. --Itinerant1 (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, but then where do they get the 5000-mile wide view from, if they are from outside the industry? Is it assumed to be the long range view, at the expense of the short range view? i.e. they know enough if they know how the big picture is looking? IBE (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much the long range at the expense of the short range, as the broad strategic view of the company role in the economy, with emphasis on all things financial - where are the suppliers, where are the consumers, what makes money and what doesn't, and hopefully some idea of where the things will be 5 years from now. Some of it should be general knowledge in CEO-world, and, if you focus on a specific company, with the right mindset and you know how to ask the right questions, you can fill in the gaps fairly quickly.

The role of a CEO may be compared with the role of a field marshal (in the U.S., a five-star general) in an army. A private is expected to be skilled with a handgun, an M-16, and in hand-to-hand combat. A lower-ranking officer is expected to manage his subordinates, to know their strengths and weaknesses, to keep them busy without making them exhausted, and to make sure that they get their jobs done. A marshal is also responsible for the strategy: he makes decisions that determine the overall direction of a war (which cities are taken, which battles are fought, where to move troops and supplies for their optimal immediate or future use), and he relies on feedback from his subordinates to do his job. A randomly-picked private would probably make a bad marshal, and most marshals are bad with M-16's.

Of course, this is mostly an idealized picture, many CEOs and many field marshals turn out to be quite bad at what they are supposed to do. These jobs are not straightforward and they are not easily scripted.--Itinerant1 (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Most CEO's need (or have) only 5% competence 95% Gift of the gab. No Harvard education would be complete, without a trip over to kiss the Blarney Stone. --Aspro (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A CEO has to be willing to be really mean at times, throwing employees out of their jobs, then putting up with heaps of criticism from the media and public for doing this and for outsourcing operations to the third world. That's all part of maximising return to shareholders. Oh, some of the criticism will also be for the massive salaries and bonuses they receive while hurting so many other people. But that's their job. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You really see that on the show Shark Tank, where the hopeful inventor comes before the successful CEOs, who often then humiliate the inventor and/or try to get him to fire all his American workers and move the jobs to China. If this is what it takes to succeed in America, that's truly depressing. StuRat (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it must be really Lonely at the Top. They deserve every cent. Maybe we ought to pass-the-hat-round as well.</sarcasm> --Aspro (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A manager I reported to in a large corporation once said he had gone to a testing session to see if he had the stuff CEOs and Vice Presidents are made of. The outside testing organization had a simulation of being an executive, in which participants were given fictional role-playing assignments. They had to deal with urgent deadlines, with negotiations, with a massive information input, demands for decisions without adequate information, an overflowing email inbox full of demands for replies which would have taken more hours than there are in a day. He said it was like old-time circus acts where a performer had to spin plates on sticks, with the plate smashing if it were let go too long. Personally, I would have been a tech nerd, and had "paralysis by analysis," wanting to get enough data to generate a least-squares solution to a problem, and been an Emperor Claudius when an Emperor Julius was required. Edison (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

About Adam Smith (16 June 1723 – 17 July 1790)

Is it correct to consider Adam Smith a Capitalist Theoritician? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endmysteries (talk • contribs) 20:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, why not... --Jayron32 21:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Our article, Adam Smith, describes him as: "... a Scottish social philosopher and a pioneer of political economy. ...Smith is widely cited as the father of modern economics and capitalism." See also Adam Smith By James R. Otteson, 2011: "Smith was in fact, an extremely subtle and sophisticated thinker who made important and lasting contributions to the disciplines of economics, politics, law, philosophy and ethics." So "yes" seems to be the answer to your question. Alansplodge (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Smith was a theoretician of capitalism rather than a capitalist theoretician. He was not personally a capitalist and his view of capitalism was optimistic but also very critical. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Capitalism vs. Free Market Economy

¿What is the difference between the Capitalist and Free Market Economy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endmysteries (talk • contribs) 20:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe those mean the same thing. Note, however, that a completely free market/pure capitalism doesn't really exist, except perhaps in a place without any government, or with one too weak to enforce any regulations. StuRat (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) This is more a language question than anything else. If memory serves, the term capitalism itself was invented by an opponent, Karl Marx, and not all supporters of the free market are willing to buy into the assumptions inherent in the term. Also, much of the time the word capitalism is used to refer to things like banking, finance, and commodity and stock trading, much of which is done in markets that are not really all that free. --Trovatore (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What a lot of modern writers mean by 'free market economy” is unbridled libertarianism. This is a good article. This bastardised libertarianism makes 'freedom' an instrument of oppression. Whilst the journalist is situated in the UK, it goes part way to explaining why half of America is approaching the bread line (if not already there), and also get persecuted or locked-up if they protest.--Aspro (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What total crap. --Trovatore (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Explain.

Under capitalism in its original form, the local community got richer. Most notably amongst those industries run by the Quakers.[5] Many US companies went along the same lines. They also built many local amenities, If one's parents worked for the company, then one was almost guaranteed a job at the company as well. What has happened now? These jobs have been exported abroad, in the pursuit of maximum profit for the shareholders, so the best that many of their workers grandchildren can look forward to is scrapping a living hassling on the street. America is getting into the situation that China found itself in 200 years ago (due to their unbridled pursuit of silver coinage) when it found its markets in Europe and America where shrinking because Europe and the US could now manufacturer these exotic good themselves. Its not so much the crap but who is getting themselves in it, up to their necks. Those that complain get labelled as trouble makers and un-American. Those that forget history are doomed to re-visit it.--Aspro (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to keep that in mind the next time I consider invading Poland. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of overlap, however, the principal feature of capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, and the principal feature of free-market economy is floating prices. It is uncommon, but you can have one without the other. For example, rent control is possible in a capitalist economy, but not in a truly free-market economy. In many petroleum-producing countries, petroleum is produced and sold by state-owned companies - OK in a free-market economy, not OK in a capitalist economy.--Itinerant1 (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the free market economy is that success becomes a matter of size and might. OK for me to do it but if you do it then its NOT OK and I'll take you court and bankrupt you through litigation. Just look at what the mobile phone companies are up to right now and the computer/software industries before that. So 'free' is an internal contradiction. --Aspro (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

'Free Market' means a system in which the exchange of goods is solely determined by the interaction of producers and consumers; consumers want something, producers provide it, price is determined fluidly with consumers shifting freely among producers to get the best value. 'Capitalism' is an economic system in which individuals invest money (capital) in the creation of highly efficient workspaces (ones with high output-to-cost ratios), and earn back their investment by skimming from the differential. i.e., simplistically, if ten people individually could make 100 items, but ten people together in an efficient workspace can make 1000, a capitalist spends money to create the workspace, hires the ten people, and relies on the profits from that extra 900 items to make their profit. Free market capitalism exists, but it's generally only applicable to non-corporate, small business environments. Most large economies are controlled markets: either directly by the government, as in China or with US regulations, or by large-scale entities that can effectively supersede the movement of consumers so that price is determined by the producer(s). --Ludwigs2 22:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I followed you up to "or with US regulations" So Microsoft telling the courts how to interpret the anti-trust laws in its own anti-trust case is the government controlling the market? A quick google throws up lots of the opposite as well. [6]--Aspro (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Free market refers to the aggregation of voluntary economic exchanges of tangible goods and non-tangible services that take place between agents (individuals) in a free society or open society, where the price is determined by supply and demand. Capitalism refers to an economic system characterized by private property rights. It holds that the only economic system that is morally justifiable is a system that upholds self-interest and property rights. This theoretical form of capitalism is sometimes referred to as "pure capitalism", while an economic system build on a mutual relation between government and corporations, as exists in all contemporary nation-states to varying degrees, is sometimes called "crony capitalism". In crony capitalism, price is sometimes controlled, and exchange of tangible goods and non-tangible services is sometimes involuntary. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As said by Ludwigs2, the small business sector largely operate in a free market environment. Also, the underground economy is an example of free market/pure capitalism that exists in today's world. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Even black-marketeers likely make some decisions based on the chance of being caught by authorities, so their decisions aren't all completely free. For example, drug dealers might avoid dealing hard drugs during a political convention, when the laws might actually be enforced for a few days. Conversely, the demand for prostitutes should go up during the convention, and enforcement loosened. StuRat (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Lawsuits for copyright infringement

1. Has the English Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation ever been sued for "close paraphrase" copyright infringement?
2. If so, can you tell me the names of some of the cases? (I already saw Sylvia Scott Gibson's complaint, thanks.) --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: "I already saw Sylvia Scott Gibson's complaint". I didn't, so a link would be appreciated. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Google is your friend, you know: Latawnya,_the_Naughty_Horse,_Learns_to_Say_"No"_to_Drugs#Legal_action. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

ASCII, here's a link to the Scribd copy of her legal complaint. Gibson-v-Amazon-Complaint (I shouldn't have even mentioned her because her complaint, as far as I can understand it, has nothing to do with "close paraphrase".) --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's an answer from Moonriddengirl (not acting in any official WMF capacity):

This is a quick reply, passing through. I'm afraid that, even if I'm an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation, I don't have their legal history at hand. :) I can tell you that the English Wikipedia is not a legal entity and cannot be sued. The Wikimedia Foundation is, but as an online service provider is shielded by the DMCA, with which it is fully compliant. When a copyright holder complains, we remove the content.

Beyond that, I'm afraid that your question doesn't really reflect the way copyright cases work. Copyright cases hinge on whether or not taking of creative content is substantial, not on whether taking is directly pasted or closely paraphrased or even completely reworded, as with translations from other languages. Of course, direct copying is bound to be easier to determine. :) But to quote from 1992's "Copy Wrong: Plagiarism, Process, Property and the Law" by Laurie Stearns, "By being expansive in its definition of copying, or perhaps in its definition of expression, copyright law has sensibly avoided one of the strictures of the idea/expression dichotomy: it has eliminated paraphrasing as a defense to a charge of infringement. To qualify as a copyright infringement, the copying of expression need not be exact. Judge Hand addressed the question of paraphrasing, observing that copyright protection 'cannot be limited literally to the text, else a plagiarist would escape by immaterial variations.'" (You can see Judge Hand in context at [7].) What constitutes sufficient rewrite or substantial similarity can be difficult to determine. Unfortunately, there is no concrete test. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:37, 5 February 2012

February 5

Waitangi

how many pepople who singed in waitangi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.9.193 (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Treaty of Waitangi says about 500. StuRat (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe" and prepositions

Some time ago I have noticed that title "Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe" has no prepositions (that is, it is not "Supreme Headquarters of Allied Powers in Europe" or something similar). Neither article "Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe", nor articles "English grammar", "Abbreviation" and "Preposition" seem to explain the reason for it, and in some cases (for example, [8]) prepositions are used. Situation seems to be similar with "Supreme Allied Commander Europe", "Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force" and the like. On the other hand, "Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers" does have a preposition. So, is (was?) there some political reason for lack of prepositions, or is it just some abbreviation? And, of course, is there an article describing something like that?

I guess it might be that this question is more suitable for Language reference desk, but, given the possibility of some political reason, I decided to try here first... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems that most of them have a sort of implied comma, fitting into a template [function or rank] + [scope of authority]. There were a lot of abbreviations with that implicit structure ("CINCPAC" etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me to be Jargon, Military, For the Use Of. Possibly modelled (conciously or otherwise) on SNAFU. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that (as AnonMoos) it's punctuation that's being dropped, perhaps "Supreme Headquarters (Allied Expeditionary Force)" or "Supreme Headquarters (Allied Powers, Europe)". That doesn't tell us why, but I imagine punctuation gets abbreviated more easily than words. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for answers, now that does make sense. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Chinese Poem

I am making a gift for a friend, and I am looking for Chinese poems about storms or butterflies, but I'm having no look searching on my own. I'd prefer a short poem, only about 4 lines, but I could always take an except of a larger poem. Can anyone show me where to look?70.171.16.134 (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Here --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I should have mentioned that I can neither speak nor read Chinese, so I'd need the text in English, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.16.134 (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are some (these came up with the search terms "storm poems Chinese" and "butterfly poems Chinese"):

• { jimsheng . hubpages.com / hub / Snow-Storm } (sorry for format - apparently Wikipedia doesn't allow links to that site) "Snow Storm" by Du Fu
• "Jade Flower Palace" by Tu Fu (same poet, I think). The same page also has "Amongst the Cliffs" by Han Yu, which is about the aftermath of a storm)
• "Chuang Tzu and the Butterfly" by Li Po
• "Die - the Butterfly" by Wu Meng Shan --184.147.128.151 (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The most famous Chinese literary butterfly reference (though not a poem) is Zhuangzi#The_butterfly_dream... AnonMoos (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My thanks for finding those. I'm considering using the text from Zhuangzi. I guess I also should have mentioned that I would like the Chinese text and English translation, if possible. If anyone else would like to contribute (I'm awful at searching for things), I'd greatly appreciate it.70.171.16.134 (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do you want to give a Chinese poem to a friend as a gift? Note that Zhuangzi wrote his poem more than 2000 years ago, and even though ancient Chinese uses mostly the same characters as modern Chinese, a modern Chinese native would have lots of trouble understanding the poem. It's not as bad as reading the original Beowulf is for an English speaker, but it's much harder than reading Canterbury Tales, for example. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm studying Chinese calligraphy, and I'd like to copy some phrases from a poem. My friend isn't Chinese and isn't capable of reading it. I want to pair the poem with a drawing that I think he would like.70.171.16.134 (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A word of cuation 70.171.1.134: the exerpt from Zhuang Zi about the butterfly is not a "poem", it is classical prose in a philosophy book. The passage quoted in the section AnonMoos linked to is a rather prosaic exposition of philosophy. If poetry is what you are going for, you will need something else. If you want a poem on the same theme, use the poem by Li Bai that 184.147.128.151 referred to.

To 140.180.15.97: actually, most educated Chinese people would have no trouble reading that exerpt from Zhuang Zi. It is, afterall, a story that is known to most Chinese people. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Two-way Caesar cipher

I didn't know where else to put this. Sorry if it's misplaced... I was wondering if anyone had ever tried to encode a Caesar cipher that could make sense both encrypted and decrypted. In other words, you would use the shift to encode a message, but the encrypted string of characters would be a logical and grammatically correct, innocuous message that would not raise the suspicions of whoever you would want to avoid decrypting the message. I hopes this makes sense. Thanks... Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 07:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure you could do that with a straight Caesar cipher except for very small phrases or words, maybe. A true Caesar is just a group substitution, which is going to put you into tricky territory because you can't match the letter frequencies up correctly. If you set it so that vowels equal other vowels, you can make short words, e.g. RAT <=> VEX, BIN <=> HOT. But there is no shift that can turn HOTDOG into a recognizable word, for example. Even a pretty simple and common word like DOGS is limited (you can turn it into pase, which apparently means "a maneuver with the cape in bullfighting"). (You can play around with this here by putting in a word and clicking each of the letters to see the available ciphers.) Now a very clever person could probably do this with very carefully constructed pair of sentences with ROT13, but even that would be tough. It wouldn't be a very practicable form of encrypted conversation — you'd be better off with just agreed upon code phrases ("The dog is having lunch today" = "The Prime Minister will be at West Minster tomorrow"). But I could see it featuring in a mystery novel, perhaps. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be describing a form of constrained writing not covered in our article. -- ToE 14:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Something like rot13("Cher Robyn ones clerk ova. Vend tang try or terra!") is the best I could do, though ignoring spaces would open more possibilities. -- ToE 16:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC) "vex" is a rot13 cognate!

Evanh2008 -- Encoding a message among "innocuous text", so that people might not suspect that there's any ulterior message at all, is known as steganography, but it doesn't have any particular connection with Caesar ciphers... AnonMoos (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

One example of this, although possibly accidental, is that IBM shifts 1 character to become "HAL", the evil computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey. StuRat (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank for the replies. Interesting IBM anecdote; hadn't heard of that one. Mr.98 is closest to what I was thinking, in that the vowels are really the problem for piecing together coherent words in the encrypted. I had a thought, though, that it would probably be easier using atbash, since the Hebrew language lacks vowels. Well, thanks again. Cheers! Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 21:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's quite a long list of word-pairs. It had its origin in a question I asked in 2005 – here. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That is ridiculously cool, Jack! Thanks for sharing. :) Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 08:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Pet bugs on strings

What are the species of bugs that Chinese people in Shantou (and I'm guessing near-by areas) tie strings to and buy from street vendors as pets? They were green and flew hence the string.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The Mantis, perhaps? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Smaller and more beetle looking. I'm guessing it's only known in that region.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The traditional Chinese pet insect is the cricket (see crickets as pets) but from your description it sounds more like some kind of cicada, which are very common in China. 78.151.145.161 (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Wild guess: Emerald ash borer? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 14:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Gap-Theory

What is the meaning of the term of Gap-Theory in conection of the bible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastorsamdarf (talk • contribs) 08:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

See Gap creationism --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Another perspective is given in God of the gaps, which is described as "a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence." HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not quite the same thing as The Gap Theory, which is a specific reference to Genesis. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

notable special schools

what are some of the most notable special schools in the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.224.218 (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"special school" can mean many different things. Can you be more specific?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume special school means special school. It's well defined there. See Category:Special schools for a list of some special schools.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Steam boat disaster, Scotland

I found this on a tombstone "In front of this Stone, is interred the body of CHARLES BAILLIE SUTHERLAND of Rossshire, youngest Son of the late Capt. George Sackville Sutherland of ______ who was drowned with many other passengers by the ____ Steam boat _________________ In the dreadful CATASTROPHE by which that vessel was sunk off Rempock ________________". I know George died 1812; presumably Charles died in the catastrophe. Can you please point me to the name of the ship? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

A little Googling[9] suggests that would be The Comet, aye.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

And here is a photo of the actual gravestone. The full legend reads "In front of this Stone, is interred the Body of CHARLES BAILLIE SUTHERLAND of Ross-shire, youngest Son of the late Capt. George Sackville Sutherland of Rhives, aged 17: who was drowned, with many other passengers by the Comet steam boat from Inverness: In the dreadful CATASTROPHE by which that vessel was sunk off Kempock on the morning of the 21st October 1825".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Perfect answer. Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Compromise of Wikipedia's neutrality

Hi everyone, I have seen one of the most prominent objection against placing ad in Wikipedia was that advertisers may compromise Wikipedia's neutrality. According to Wikipedia:Advertisements#Arguments_against_adverts, "Companies which pay directly to advertise on Wikipedia may then feel entitled to favorable coverage about themselves in Wikipedia articles, or to content that is compatible with their message." Now Wikipedia is taking grants from large corporate foundations. Is not it possible that these large foundations will try to do the same the advertising companies might have done? I know it is impossible for Wikipedia to run without grants, and it is far better to take grants from foundation than placing the annoying ads, just curious about the possibility. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree with you but this isn't the proper place, alas.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My own opinion is that this is a valid concern, but all large foundations will be aware that the only benefit they expect is to be able to say that they contributed to Wikipedia. That said, we do need to remain vigilant to ensure that nobody is tempted to put these foundations in a better light than they deserve, or to exclude some well cited report that could put them in negative light, fo example if one foundation was particularly inefficient and used more money than expected on internal costs. Also, why isn't this the proper place, surely undue corporate influence on neutral information sources is a concern of humanities? -- Q Chris (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a place for a debate. I don't really see a reference desk question in the above, except for the question of whether it was possible in the abstract that grants could influence activity. The answer of that is "of course," of course, but the details matter. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Well! --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you're missing a key difference, which is that advertisements would be obvious to all users, calling into question Wikipedia's integrity, whereas most users don't know the source of grants, so that the integrity would be maintained in their eyes. This is like the difference between Facebook when it sells your information to third parties, and Facebook when it displays an ad. Both are something users don't necessarily enjoy, but the former is not up in their face. 188.156.10.59 (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Why did Pol Pot have so many high-quality friends (allies)?

Why? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If you mean in international diplomacy after the 1979 war, few really supported the Khmer Rouge, but a number of countries weren't too enthusiastic about rewarding Vietnamese territorial aggrandisement with diplomatic recognition (including the United States, which had recent bitter memories of the Vietnam war). AnonMoos (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a clearer explanation of the claim that Pol Pot had "so many high-quality friends (allies)" Is there a good source to back up that claim? HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

An overwhelming majority of the world's richest (capitalist, including the United States) and non-Soviet aligned Communist countries (including China) supported Pol Pot's regime rather than Vietnam's ousting of that lunatic according to Cambodian-Vietnamese war. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If the North Vietnamese wanted to be widely perceived as a suitable international humanitarian rescue force, then they should have done more to prepare the way for this, since almost nothing in the events of the 25 years preceding 1979 would have given any real credence to such an idea. However, Cambodia in the first half of the 1980s was certainly something of a low point for international diplomacy... AnonMoos (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I hold no brief for Vietnamese Communists, but I think we have to recognize that they were the ones who stopped the killing. I won't speculate on whether they did it for humanitarian reasons or not, but it is also worth noting that, the Khmer Rouge gone, the Vietnamese went home.

At the time (or a little after the time, maybe) I interpreted the United States' choice to oppose the Vietnamese action as part of the "China strategy" for containing the Soviet Union (roughly speaking Cambodia was a Chinese ally, Vietnam a Soviet one). I thought that was appalling, especially since I didn't see the PRC as really any better than the Soviet Union. --Trovatore (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

By late 1978 the Vietnamese didn't really expect to be taken seriously by the West as "a suitable international rescue force". Their policy throught the American war had been to retain good links with both China and the USSR despite the Sino-Soviet split, but the Nixon-China rapprochement put a stop to that. By 1978 they were pressed by the Chinese in the north and China's Cambodia allies in the south. They took on the Cambodians but that triggered the 1979 China-Vietnam war. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Diplomacy was the reason behind this support, not friendship. US or China were strategic supporters, not friends. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The basic idea was to punish the Vietnamese, to make their 'victory' over the USA even more pyrrhic. The Cambodian regime had acted in an irrationally aggressive way toward Vietnam, which had a case of self-defense. Noam Chomsky has pointed out that this is one of the only military actions that could credibly be called humanitarian intervention - far more than anything the USA has done since WWII, which have been nothing but neocolonialism.John Z (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Including Kosovo? AnonMoos (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

From the U.S. point of view, the answer to the inevitable failures of communism should be less communism, not more communism -- and Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia seemed to be at least partially a validation of the old "Domino theory". In the aftermath of the bitter Vietnam war, it was an intervention by the wrong party at the wrong time to gain international support outside the Soviet bloc. AnonMoos (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Vietcong were arguably "less communist" than the Khmer Rouge, so even from that angle one could see the Vietnamese intervention as an improvement. --Trovatore (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Pol Pot's maoism explains some of the utter viciousness.--Radh (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

book about a british girl in India babysitted by an Indian

There was a book about a British girl who was babysitted by an Indian woman and this took place during British Raj? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.65.119 (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

She would have been more likely referred to as a "nanny" or amah than a "babysitter"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The Secret Garden begins like that, anyway. And "amah" would most likely have been the term.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The Secret Garden (1911).
Sleigh (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

February 6

Greek protests targeting inequity of austerity?

Does anyone here read (modern) Greek? What I have read in English about the domestic impact of the Greek crisis includes the following: 1) Stringent austerity is being imposed on the Greeks through the cutting of public services, and this is having a disproportionate impact on less well-off Greeks. 2) Tax evasion is widespread among affluent Greeks, and the government efforts to end tax evasion have been ineffective. 3) Greeks have been mounting massive protests against the austerity. What I have not seen anywhere is that Greeks are protesting their government's failure to impose the burden of austerity fairly by forcing the affluent to hand over revenue, revenue that might allow for less stringent cuts. Do the Greek protests include this element, or are less affluent Greeks complacent about this issue? Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything that suggests that increasing income rates beyond what was proposed would make a material difference. This is being attacked pretty much from the standpoint of writing off a good part of their sovereign debt. I think for the Greeks it is us against the world, so to speak, they do not seem greatly concerned with internal dissensions.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a question of raising tax rates but of enforcing tax rates. I'm just wondering if the equity issue comes up in the Greek discourse. Marco polo (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that squeezing money out of the rich is notoriously difficult. They can hide assets, hire teams of lawyers, and even move, with their money, to someplace with no extradition treaty. StuRat (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is not always that difficult. In Italy and Greece, Google Maps are proving very effective to prove that many wealthy people have huge unregistered real estates. They can't move their villas to Monaco, even if they want to. --Soman (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

They can sell them and move the proceeds. StuRat (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The argument that if we tax the rich, they and/or their money will leave our jurisdiction is open to many objections. The rich can't live in one place and keep their money in another without exposing that money to taxation when they bring the money in, in the form of income, or when they use that money to buy a residence or other assets, which become taxable property. The government has the right to audit, and a government committed to combating tax evasion would do so and would target wealthy individuals to reap the maximum advantage from audits. Then there is the argument that the rich will pick up and leave entirely and, if necessary, renounce their citizenship. First, this may be true, but probably only for a limited number of individuals. People, including rich people, do not typically choose the country where they live based on their exposure to tax. If this were true, there would be no rich people in France. (Yes, I am aware that a few rich French people have moved to Switzerland or elsewhere.) Rich people choose to live in France, or the United States, regardless of taxes, because of the amenities of the place, cultural affinities such as language, and family ties. There is nowhere else in the world like Paris, Manhattan, or Nantucket, and these places will always attract rich people as long as tax rates are not extortionate. Similarly, most rich Greeks are unlikely to leave the posh neighborhoods and suburbs of Athens or their villas on exclusive islands for some other country if the Greek state starts forcing them to pay taxes. Leaving the country would force them to live in a foreign country, with an unfamiliar, language, climate, and culture, and far from friends and relatives who do not make the same choice. Most rich people would rather pay their taxes and postpone the purchase of a second yacht or whatever rather than go into exile. Second, as for those rich people who would rather go into exile than pay their fair share, I think it is rational for citizens of a country to say to them "Good riddance". Marco polo (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, the rich would be good targets, and the Greek tax system should be overhauled. Collecting more legally owed taxes would have a positive kind of Balanced budget multiplier effect. But Greece's problem is not really the debt or inequity, but the fact that it is in the Eurozone. The Euro is an economic suicide pact, designed during the nadir of a dark age of economics, and as originally envisioned MUST destroy the economies of all its members, including Germany, whose Euro hoarding, unemployment exporting "reform" policies of underpaying its workers and lowering German demand are at the heart of the immediate problem. Austerity is a burden which should not be shared, but rather, not imposed at all. The modus operandi of the ECB, the Eurocrats who are torturing a continent, is to only support the bonds of members who embark on suicidal Robin Hood in reverse, take from the poor to give to the rich austerity policies that create massive unemployment. Greece could go it alone by simply jumping off the Euro, or by the halfway measure of saying that its bonds are redeemable for tax payments, which would immediately lower rates. But the problem is that increasing inequity, the destruction of Europe's productive and efficient welfare states and social programs which are great benefits to their economies, not costs, is the desired goal of many European elites, not an unfortunate side effect. And they don't care how many they impoverish and kill, how much the European economies are wrecked if they can be the overlords of these degenerating economies. If tax evasion or corruption, bad in themselves, accelerate the departure of Greece from the Euro, they could be doing a lot of good.John Z (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite an extreme minority view. It's self-evident to just about everyone but you that spending more than you make and borrowing to fill in the gap is unsustainable and will eventually lead to major problems, regardless of whether Greece is alone or in the Euro. The cure is to stop doing that and pay back what you borrowed, AKA, "austerity". StuRat (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Access to source needed! The mutiny on the Meermin / (2003) Alexander, Andrew

The mutiny on the Meermin / (2003) Alexander, Andrew; Thesis (Hons. (History))--University of Cape Town

We're trying to work The Meermin slave mutiny up; I know I've seen this (or at least parts of it) online, can;t for the life of me remember how / where. Can anyone get this for us? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 15:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Pesky, you'd probably have better luck asking the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. :P -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a relationship between continental philosophy and the intelligent design movement?

I don't know, but the two Wiki articles I've read (more like briefly scanned) use freakishly similar wording!

Continental Philosophy: "First, continental philosophers generally reject scientism, the view that the natural sciences are the only or most accurate way of understanding phenomena."

Neo-creationism: "Its proponents argue that the scientific method excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards supernatural elements, thus effectively excluding religious insight from contributing to understanding the universe."

Simply put, is neo-creationism another name for continental philosophy, or simply uses the words from continental philosophy to rationalize creationism? 164.107.190.123 (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, they most emphatically do not. Do not scan. Read. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not much of an answer, is it? Perhaps you could explain to me and the OP, since it seems so obvious to you, why the OP's quote about continental philosophers rejecting scientism places them so far apart from creationists. --Viennese Waltz 17:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I had it typed out, but then I realized I was merely repeating what was already in the article if the OP would read beyond the first sentence of the first bullet. Since snarkiness is the mood of the day though, here's my attempt at a summary of the article just for you and in memory of the Baker. Note that I'm no philosopher, and couldn't tell Kant from Kierkegaard from Klingon, but I'll karry on nonetheless.

Continental philosphy defines a philosophical tradition in continental Europe that tend to focus on the less quantifiable problems in philosophy (e.g. sociology, spirit, political thought, thought, ethics, art, freedom, the human experience, etc., subjects that would fit under the "Humanities" subject in uni I guess) and are contrasted from analytic philosophers prevalent in English-speaking countries in the same time period who use natural sciences (e.g. mathematics and formal logic) to deal with philosophical problems.

The obvious differences first - ID is late 20th century American, continental philosophy is 19th to early 20th century continental Europe. The former is a specific group working together under one religion and one dogma, the latter is a loose collective of various thinkers bound by trend rather than a strict code and encompassed ideas as far apart from each other as Absurdism and Marxism.

The more subtle differences - What continental philosophy rejects is not science (as in the hard sciences and specifically evolution like neo-creationism does), but the assertion that the "truth" can be arrived at through empirical approaches. But like analytic philosophy, science, and indeed "true" religion, continental philosophy also seeks a/the truth.

Neo-creationists and ID, on the other hand, do not seek anything. They have already found it, a truth that nothing can dissuade them from. Their pretense at philosophy/science are merely the misrepresentation, rearranging, and various confabulations of "evidence" so that it fits into that inviolable conclusion. The true motives of neocreationism is not the revival of non-empirical approaches to philosophy, rather it is a far more mundane goal - the reinstitution of [specifically Christian] creationism as a valid subject to be taught in public schools.

One is sincere, the other is a liar. It's almost insulting to compare the two. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason why creationists want the "reinstitution of [specifically Christian] creationism as a valid subject to be taught in public schools" so badly? What is the point? Why do they want to achieve this goal? I've read about the Wedge document on Wikipedia, but I am still clueless. The document talks about the 5-year plan and 25-year plan about changing society and reversing the so-called disastrous effects on Western culture without really going into detail what exactly are the very bad effects that evolution has on society. 164.107.190.2 (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And ID uses "scientific" terminology to sound more respectable than they really are. There's probably a guidebook somewhere forbidding them to use philosophical/religious terminology in case it breaks the illusion they're desperately trying to build.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think a case could be made for a connection. The intelligent design movement is largely a U.S. phenomenon, and I think it counts on the exposure of Americans who have attended college or university since about 1985 to continental philosophy or to discourses influenced by continental philosophy. In particular, the rejection by these discourses of much of the project of the Enlightenment and in particular of positivism created an opening for intellectual movements such as intelligent design that reject the scientific method as a definitive way of finding truth. Marco polo (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that again ID does not reject science. It pretends to be one.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh my God, that means that Godel and Russell and Wittgenstein are supporting intelligent design because they demonstrated the limits of crude empirical approaches to truth!!! OH NOES. Zizek is really the anti-pope!!!! Fifelfoo (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To answer your last question, though, no, neo-creationism is not another name for continental philosophy. Continental philosophy would be just as sceptical, if not more sceptical, of epistemological appeals to supernatural causes as it is of the scientific construction of knowledge. Marco polo (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Is scientism a real word? If so, what does it mean?HiLo48 (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you know this site happens to be an encyclopedia? Cool, huh... --Mr.98 (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are simple examples of what each of these believe. A continental philosopher might contend that a purely empirical or scientific understanding is not going to tell you what "power" is really about. They might argue that there are aspects to it that cannot be quantified, or can only be understood through deep historical and literary immersion. They might also argue that there are aspects to it which might defy a strictly empirical understanding: that looking at how people act or asking them what they think or measuring their brain waves or whatever is not really going to tell you much about the underlying ontology of power.

An intelligent design proponent of the sort described there (that is, one which criticizes the scientific method as narrow, in the manner of Phillip E. Johnson) would say that the scientific enterprise as currently exists explicitly rules out the possibility of supernatural intervention — there is simply no place in an equation for "God does something unrepeatable and special," like creating something out of nothing (which the laws of thermodynamics say are not possible). Therefore scientists will warp their understanding of the world through a lens which lacks these sorts of forces. The IDer then argues that there is no a priori reason to expect the world to be wholly "naturalistic" — that this is an arbitrary methodological assumption that has nothing to do with strict reason. They then argue that a more "inclusionist" scientific method might include "a miracle goes here" in their outlook and/or equations or observations, and orient itself around searching out for those little miracles. (ID is not, strictly speaking, fundamentalist Creationism. They are not looking to validate Genesis word-for-word. They are looking for gaps in a purely naturalistic account of evolution. Plenty of Creationists like the quasi-scientific sounds of ID, and see it as a "wedge" by which to inject Creationism into school curricula and the like, but it's not quite the same thing. ID is more sophisticated than garden variety Young Earth Creationism, but that doesn't make it correct.)

Agree or disagree with either of them (I'm cautious about the former, rejecting of the latter), but they aren't the same thing at all, as I think the above examples make clear. They are not even really united in rejecting scientific explanation. The former wants to claim that scientific explanation is just another way of knowing and is not privileged; the latter wants to expand scientific methodology to include supernatural explanations. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You could probably draw a link between continental philosophy and the Intelligent Design movement, but such a link would be a twisted and warped misrepresentation of the two. Continental philosophy was a movement which, loosely, believed that truth could be established from non-scientific sources. They were often proponents of a priori reasoning: discovering truths from reason and logic alone, without having to test anything - in the way mathematics can make sense without doing any tests. They also often believed in some sort of metaphysical reality - that is a reality beyond just the natural world (perhaps encompassing the supernatural, the divine, etc). They did not reject science, nor did they attempt to alter or affect science; rather, they didn't believe that science is enough. They accepted that science can provide truth, but argued that truth can be found in other places as well.

The Intelligent Design movement, on the other hand, asserts that it is a science. It argues that there is evidence of design in the world and, therefore, God must have created the world. Generally, they also reject Darwinian evolution, believing it to be false or based on inaccuracies, often citing 'proof' of this. Almost all of what they teach is pseudoscience - it is based on false science. For example, much of their rejection on evolution is based on 'facts' which simply are not true, or facts which are true but are irrelevant. The idea of irreducible complexity, for example, is coherent, but could still be achieved through evolution. Most, if not all, of this is based on religious belief, which is what ultimately makes it unscientific. Though they claim to be scientific, they reject any valid piece of evidence which would oppose their view and construct an unfalsifiable theory.

So, the difference is quite fundamental. Continental philosophers accept the value of science, but believe that there could be more. The Intelligent Design movement uses poor, false science in an attempt to 'prove' what they already believe, and often have put a political spin on. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to defend ID, but calling it "unscientific" misses the point of the Johnson-style argument, which is that "scientific" is a form of specific methodological bias and not something (by itself) to be aspired to. It's a legitimate philosophical criticism, except for the fact that admission of miracles into science creates far more problems than it would ever solve. It's only a hop, skip, and a jump from Johnson's argument to methodological anarchism, since there isn't anything actually mooring miracles as a must-have methodology either (except faith, but that isn't sound methodology). --Mr.98 (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right, and there are considerable theories in philosophy which suggest that science is not the only way to achieve knowledge. The problem with ID, however, is that is claims that is is scientific, when it is not. It would perhaps hold more weight if it presented itself as a religious or philosophical argument; its insistence that it is scientific is what has left it open to such criticism. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You are missing my point. The Johnson-style variation of ID, which I explain above, contains in it a methodological critique of what it means to be "scientific." Thus saying "it is not scientific" is not itself an actual rebuttal. It claims to be "scientific" only under a modified definition of "scientific," which includes certain types of miracles. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Jumping the broom 1848

A fellow owned a slave and had a son by her. He gave that child to his legitimate daughter as a wedding present in 1846. She already had her own female slave. They jumped the broom in 1848. Would that be about right and how would they have jumped it? Kittybrewster ☎ 17:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

See Jumping the broom - for those who, like me, did not have the faintest idea what Kitty's talking about. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, could you rephrase that? I can't tell who "they" refers to. --Tango (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

They refers to the slaves. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Jumping the broom#Decline after the end of American slavery talks about this subject. Why do you think there is something odd about the situation you describe? --Tango (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if "they" refers to the slaves, it would be a little odd for a two-year-old to get married, wouldn't it? RudolfRed (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

More than "a little odd" - more like "utterly impossible". So, back to square 1. If it didn't include the 2-year-old boy, who were the "they" who jumped the broom? Sorry Kitty, but you really need to give us more if you want us to help you. Even the original question was incomprehensible until I found out for myself what "jumping the broom" meant. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I was not meaning to imply immediate chronology. The male slave married the female slave before jumping the broom. Equally the white female new owner and her fiance would both have been at least 18 & 20. Kittybrewster ☎ 03:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. So, antebellum, "most marriages between enslaved blacks were not legally recognized ...". Hence, any marriage they did enter into was null and void. Their way of publicly declaring their mutual commitment was to jump the broom.

"Would that be about right?" - it seems plausible to me.

"How would they have jumped it?" - "In some African-American communities, marrying couples will end their ceremony by jumping over a broomstick, either together or separately".

Does that answer your questions, Kitty? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So they probably remained slaves until 1863? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any information from the very limited you've provided to suggest when, if ever, they were freed from slavery. Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You're assuming that the "child" was newborn in 1846, but that's an inference, not stated in the text you give us. Kate Middleton was also her father's child when he 'gave her away' last year but there were no press allegations of cradle snatching. --Dweller (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

February 7

Two questions about New France

Alright, so as the title said, I have two questions dealing with New France.

1. From what I can see, the only wars between the 1721 and 1748 in North America was Father Rale's War and King George's War, but someone had told me that there was fighting going on in between that time period. Is that true? If so, what were they called, and who won?
2. Did France ever willingly send peasants or other poor Frenchman to North America? Was it an act that granted this, and if so what was it called?

I just wanted to know accurate information, thanks! 64.229.180.189 (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in the King's Daughters. BrainyBabe (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

France also sent many female convicts as wives to the French colonists. One of my own direct ancestors was a former inmate at the La Salpetriére prison in Paris. She arrived in Louisiana on the ship La Baliene in 1721 and subsequently married a French colonist, by whom she had children. These women were known as the Baliene Brides.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean La Baleine (The whale) and La Salpêtrière — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

To get back to question 1, the Canadian Encyclopedia calls the period between 1713 and 1744 a "long period of peace" in New France [10]. So no, there weren't significant conflicts between France and Britain in North America during the period. On the issue of colonists, apart from the Filles du Roy metioned above (an appelation that includes Jeanne boleyn's ancestor), the only "unwilling" settlers were soldiers, who were offered an opportunity to settle in New France after completing their service there. Many did, and left behind characteristic family names that were originally nicknames often linked to gambling, drinking and performance on the battlefield. All other colonists were volunteers, which goes a long way to explain why there were so few of them: France was relatively prosperous, the ocean crossing was arduous, opening farmland was hard work given the forst had to be cut down first, and persecuted religious minorities were not allowed to come over, leaving only a small number of persons willing to undertake the move.--Xuxl (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

About the U.S. economy

Was the U.S. originally founded to operate under a Capitalist or a Free-Market Economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endmysteries (talk • contribs) 04:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Capitalism is free market, no? →Στc. 04:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Theoretically it would be possible to have private investment in state-controlled enterprises, which would be capitalism without a free market. But the answer to the question is that the US constitution does not say anything about economic systems, and even the Declaration of Independence essentially ducked the issue. Looie496 (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Some info on this topic at Laissez-faire#United States. Pfly (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

'Capitalism' and 'Free Market' are (loosely speaking) synonyms, but the actual answer to your question is probably 'No'. The U.S. wasn't founded with the intention of pursuing a particular economic ideology - it was founded as a reaction against another ideology, along with the military and economic might that was attempting to enforce it. In as much as the U.S. had ideological roots, they were in the enlightenment, and in radical opposition to the status quo, rather than in defence of a utopian abstraction that nobody at the time had even heard of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, the same year when The Wealth of Nations was published, and the Constitution was adopted in 1787. The ideas of Adam Smith (classical liberalism) had influence on the Founding Fathers and they advocated a system which in modern terminology can be called "capitalism, minarchism, and individualism". [11] --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source that asserts that the 'Founding Fathers' had actually read 'The Wealth of Nations'? Not that it matters that much, in that Adam Smith was no supporter of what is now misleadingly called 'capitalism'... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Looie496, Pfly & AndyTheGrump. The most salient characteristic of (early) American economic thought like the American School (economics) is its pragmatism, nationalism and concern for the real economy, in marked contrast to a modern "mainstream" that fantasizes that there ever could be or was a monetary economy which was not supervised by the state.John Z (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether any of the Founding Fathers read TWON, but Franklin, Jefferson and Paine knew Smith personally, meeting at Richard Price's house in Newington Green. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a homework question to me! but if you economic warriors want to battle it out here... i guess you got the perfect prompt! Shadowjams (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The bill of rights protects property, which I always have interpreted as including capital, which I interpret as officialising Capitalism, but maybe I am making an assumption here. --Lgriot (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup, making a couple of big assumptions, mostly wrong. You should check out Oliver Wendell Holmes (more of a fan of the father than the "individual rights be damned" son), but also perhaps wrong with this forum, which tends to be dedicated to answering discrete questions, not homework problems from bad students who need to repeat their rather simplistic prompts from bad teachers so they can quell some good answers here. Shadowjams (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Democracy vs. Republic

¿What is the main difference between a Democracy and a Constitucional Republic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endmysteries (talk • contribs) 05:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

See the articles about democracy and constitutional republics. →Στc. 06:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The inverted question-mark and constitucional with a c should tip the reader off that this OP is a Latin American leader about to face some tough choices... :-P 188.157.211.6 (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This never gets old:

	Republics	Monarchies
Democratic	Italy, USA	Canada, Netherlands
Not democratic	Cuba, Turkmenistan	Saudi Arabia, Brunei

-- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

More detail: A "republic" is a country with a president (or other elected official) instead of a monarch, whether it is democratic or not. The selection of the head of state does not have to be the result of a fair election. Thus, Cuba is a republic, because its head of state, Raul Castro is officially a president rather than a king. A "democracy" is any country where the government is controlled by "the people." This is generally interpreted to mean a country with free elections, usually with more than one party, and human rights. A democracy can be a republic (like Finland) or a monarchy (like Canada). A "constitutional republic" is an analogy to constitutional monarchy, which means a country where the monarch's power is limited by a written or unwritten constitution. You sometimes hear some people like Glenn Beck say things like, "America is a republic (or "constitutional republic"), not a democracy." What they mean is that it is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. People have been referring to America as a "democracy" since the early 19th century. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Democracy Index has Italy as "Flawed democracy". More important to the question, Italy is a parliamentary republic and not a constitutional republic. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Italy most certainly is a "constitutional republic." What is is not is a presidential republic like the US. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

about portrait painting

Who was the first live portrait painter of India? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.77.167 (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A simple google search --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

According to this it was Tilly Kettle --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Honor killings

Which Quranic verses and hadiths are most commonly used by proponents of honor killing to justify their beliefs? --140.180.7.220 (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you any evidence that 'proponents of honor killing' use 'Quranic verses and hadiths' to justify anything? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, which is why I'm asking. --140.180.7.220 (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In which case, your question is based on a flawed premise. Have you stopped beating your wife? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me revise my question:

• Do Muslim proponents of honor killing usually justify their beliefs using their religion?
• If so, which verses and/or hadiths do they use? --140.180.7.220 (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me revise my answer. Troll elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If you refuse to assume good faith, please leave Wikipedia. I honestly think that people like you, who assume the worst of fellow editors, are more harmful to Wikipedia and a bigger roadblock to its mission than actual trolls. My question does not violate any Reference Desk rules and is answerable with references to scholarly work; therefore, it is perfectly legitimate. --140.180.7.220 (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Please cite your 'scholarly work' for the assertion that "Muslim proponents of honor killing usually justify their beliefs using their religion". Not that it matters much, one could say the same thing about the sack of Constantinople. If one wishes to 'prove' the invalidity of a religion, one only has to examine the behaviour of its adherents - and ignore the behaviour of anyone else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Reread your comment and see if it has any relevance to my question. If you have nothing to contribute, I refuse to read any more of your comments. --140.180.7.220 (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

OP, your question is as nonsequiturious as this:

• How many US presidents had green penises?
• Do you have any evidence that any US president had a green penis?
• No, which is why I'm asking.

In other words, since there is no evidence of any such thing, you are asking the question not to get the answer - because you already know it's zero - but as an underhanded way of seeding the minds of your audience with this hitherto undreamt of absurdity. You've done the same thing here, in the hope that some impressionable minds will read it hurriedly and pick up on it. They'll go out and tell their friends that Muslim proponents of honor killing usually justify their beliefs using their religion, and if asked will say they read it on Wikipedia. While you can sit back smugly and disclaim all responsibility for the dissemination of such rubbish, and even point to where you explicitly denied the existence of any evidence of this. There's a word for this sort of thing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say that the revised question has merit and deserves an answer. --Viennese Waltz 08:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've had enough of this. I really have. You have never met me; you don't know me personally; you know nothing about my beliefs, personality, or character; you know nothing about my motivation for asking this question. Yet you've blatantly violated WP:AGF and made wild accusations without a single shred of evidence. Let me ask you this: if someone who genuinely believes that proponents of honor killings often justify themselves using the Quran, and is honestly seeking more information on the reference desk, how does he phrase his question to avoid your accusation? If there's no possible way, you would be refusing to provide answers to people who would benefit the most: open-minded OPs with genuine misconceptions. Such a person could easily become a virulent Islamophobe if everyone he asks for information assumes the worst of him and refuses to answer objectively.

To use your example, a good answer to "how many US presidents had green penises?" would be "0, because there is no evidence that human penises can be naturally green. There was also no known ritual that would have involved US presidents painting or dying their penises green." If there was a common misconception amongst the public that some US presidents had green penises, I would add to that answer "the misconception comes from sources X, Y, and Z. None of these 3 sources are viewed as reliable by scientific or historical experts; the first, for example, has been conclusively disproven by many scientific papers, including A, B, and C." --140.180.7.220 (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's a legit question. I'm not positive, but it seems to me that most of the bad things associated with the Muslim religion are actually part of Arab culture, which predated Islam. In particular, Arab culture seems to demean women (by requiring them to wear more modest clothing than men, restrict their movements and freedoms more than men, limit their education and right to vote, make their word count for less in court, etc.). StuRat (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The bizarre edit you just reverted is a perfect example of that. I don't know if you recognized that post for what it really was (it's virtually unknown to the western media), but that was a chilling reminder for me that our women workers who go to the Middle East for domestic jobs are treated not as employees, but as owned slaves.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yea, it said "pilipina escape from his (sic) employer". How can one "escape" from an employer and how is the nationality and gender relevant ? I see what you mean. StuRat (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@ OP: ... if someone who genuinely believes that proponents of honor killings often justify themselves using the Quran ... - OK. But you were asked above if you were aware of any evidence of this, and you said you are NOT aware of any evidence. So, if there is no evidence, or no evidence of which you are aware, then how can you possibly "genuinely believe" that it is so? How? And if you have no basis for believing it is so, what is the purpose of your asking questions about it? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Presumably they heard it somewhere and are now trying to determine if it's true or not. That's exactly what we're here for. StuRat (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have irrational beliefs and assumptions that I try to get rid of, just like anyone else. That's why I revised my question to ask whether my assumption was correct or not. --140.180.7.220 (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

To StuRat: Hearing it somewhere would count as evidence or at least as worthy of mention when asked "Have you any evidence?". But the answer was no.

To the OP: The human mind is unlimited in its capacity for inventing things that have zero basis in reality. It's called creativity and it's a good thing; but the sane mind knows it's not the truth. You've acknowledged you've assumed this thing about honor killings without the slightest external evidence, and you've acknowledged it's an irrational assumption. That should be the end of it. Do you really need us to confirm the irrationality of this assumption? What next? Are you going to dream up that the world is governed by invisible purple zebras and then come here to ask how many of them there are, or even whether it's true or not? Your opening question took for granted that Quranic verses and hadiths are used by proponents of honor killing to justify their beliefs; you just wanted to know which ones were the onse most commonly used. Yet ever since, you've acknowledged your question had no basis, as was pointed out very early. I remain deeply suspicious of your motives in bringing this question here in the first place, despite your reframinig of it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Hearing it somewhere" is not usually admissible evidence, especially if you don't remember where. This type of hearsay would rarely be allowed in court, for example. StuRat (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I will waste no more time refuting your closed-minded, bad-faith assumptions. If you don't want to answer the question, I don't care to read your comments. --140.180.7.220 (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Mohammad Shafia in the recent case in Canada said that his daughters, whom he killed, "betrayed Islam" [12], however I've found nothing suggesting that he cites any scripture. I think "honour killing" is a term that is applied to some murders that are motivated, to some extent, by religion, but since it is not a term in Islamic jurisprudence it would be problematic to use it when talking about the categories of such a system. That is, it would not be easy to find fatwas or, more generally, scripture which justifies "honour killing" as no such writing talks about "honour killing" per se. And specific cases are always going to be muddled: The people who do such things probably won't be on the record as citing any text at all. I think you would be more successful in directing your mind to justifiable homicide in Islamic jurisprudence in general, i.e., ask: "Under what conditions is killing permitted in Islam?" For example, which even deals with extra-judicial killing: Anderson, "Homicide in Islamic Law"Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Cambridge University Press, 1951), pp. 824:

Where homicide is legally justified all, of course, agree that the killer is free from all responsibility. The most obvious example of this is the infliction of the death penalty, after judicial judgment, on one convicted of apostacy from Islam, of the graver forms of illicit sex relations, of homicide in the course of brigandage, or of deliberate homicide of the sort discussed above. A difference of opinion obtains among jurists, however, as to the position of the man who inflicts this penalty for one of the above offences before judgment has been given accordingly. The majority view in cases of homicide is that anyone other than the proper heirs of the victim is liable himself to suffer talion if he interferes in this way with the due course of the law. As we have seen, however, this does not apply to the "heir of blood", who in such cases is only liable to suffer a discretionary punishment for his disregard of the proper procedure. But still more controversy has raged with regard to those who kill adulterers. All agree that the husband, father, or brother who surprises his wife, daughter, or sister in adultery is exempt from all penalty if he kills her, her paramour, or both: while jurists are divided as to whether this exemption extends to cases where the couple are only surprised in suspicious circumstances

--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

How come this question made me think of Anders Breivik? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Did he quote any religious text as justification? -- 119.31.22.124 (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a legitimate question here... so I will attempt to reformulate it in a neutral way:

• There have been cases of individual Muslims engaging in what is commonly termed an "honor killing". 1) Did any of these individuals cite specific Quranic verses and hadiths to justify their actions? 2) if so, which ones were cited? Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Can't find scholarly journals, but a simple Google search shows a lots of sources (albeit partisan sources) 1. FFI [13], 2. Conservapedia [14], 3. Jihad Watch[15], 4. The Humanist magazine blog [16] --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In a sensitive topic like this, scholarly opinion (rather than partisan activist sources) is essential. It is important to find a clear connection between the individual incidents of honor killing and the perpetrator's use of Koran verses. This should be covered by news pieces, but I can't find any. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw those links too, which is exactly why I asked this question: I wanted to get information from a scholarly source rather than Conservapedia or Islam Watch/Jihad Watch. The former is completely nutty on every issue, the latter does not accurately portray the opinions of most Muslims, and I doubt it knows the opinions of extremist Muslims, and even Richard Dawkins considered Faith Freedom International too biased to include in his book. --140.180.7.220 (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

One can find news articles about "honor killings" which say that some Moslem families equate the sexual purity of wives and daughters to the family's "honor" and use violence to preserve the "honor." An example is the Dallas Morning News, 2008: "“Honor killing” is the term used to describe a practice in which one or more males kills a female relative who has, in their view, dishonored the family — usually by breaking a strict taboo governing sexual behavior or gender roles. To be sure, it is not a practice historically limited to Islamic societies. Nor is there clear sanction for it in the Quran, though Islamic proponents interpret the Quran to do so. " It cites a Quranic verse (4:34) .."the good women are therefore obedient guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded: and as to those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them, then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them..." Is that the strongest endorsement of beating family members in the Quran? It does not say "kill them." The Jordanian parliament refused to pass laws restricting honor killing, seeing it as "necessary to protect traditional Islamic social mores" rather than necessary to enforce the commands of the Quran. The Judeo-Christian scriptures have many verses calling for beating of offspring (Prov 13:24, 19:18, 22:15, 23:13, 23:14, 29:15, and Hebrews 12:6-7, not to mention all the transgressions which require stoning various transgressors to death. Edison (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

AsiaTimes (2008) had an article on the practice of "honor killing" and said that Sudra 4:15 calls for killing adultresses, but that it is supposed to be done by the government. Edison (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Sura 4:15 doesn't say that at all, although it's always the one cited by anti-Islamic polemicists. (It does say to confine adulterous women at home for the rest of their lives, but it doesn't say they should be executed.) In any case, why do we never have the same reaction when a Christian kills someone, like a member of their family who they think is possessed by a demon? Adam Bishop (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

All this discussion and not one link to the article on Honor killing, which is actually quite helpful. The article links to Honour killing in Pakistan which says: "...Islamic leaders in Pakistan use religious justifications for sanctioning honour killings" (ref: Goonesekere, Savitri (2004). Violence, Law and Women's Rights in South Asia. SAGE Publications. p. 149. ISBN 0761997962); and "...traditions [which] serve to protect society from moral transgression namely adultery and amendments or repeal are seen as unislamic" (ref: [17]). The last reference quotes MMA member Asadullah Bhutto as saying "Right of compromise is given by Islam any law against it will be an interference in religion." while also saying that honour killing is unislamic. While none of these directly cites Quranic verses or hadiths, it seems this is about defending Islam against external interference including things like western attitudes to sex, marriage, relationships, clothing, etc. That could be interpreted by some as being close to apostasy for which the Quran is quite clear about the penalties. Astronaut (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hawaiian hotspot

Why did the younger and more southern volcanoes of Māhukona, Kohala, and Mauna Kea went dormant/extinct thousands of years before Haleakalā? In fact Haleakalā remains dormant while Māhukona and Kohala are listed as extinct. Why is that if the Hawaiian hotspot is moves down the chain one volcano at a time?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be on the Science Ref Desk? --jjron (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The islands move away from the Hawaiian hotspot, not the other way around. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Who is the most intelligent Wikipedian?

I know this is a rather vague question since there are several possible definitions of intelligence. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

User:ClueBot? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Grawp? And he is notorious in the internet for his edits in different wikis, just Google search "grawp+vandal". --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Jokes aside, your question is not difficult, but impossible to answer because it is based on a false premise that a particular individual can be the most intelligent compared to other individuals. It is like asking who is the most intelligent person on Earth. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Me, of course! Now ask me how I know. :P -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly not anyone who writes "...the most intelligent than...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

well well don't be a Grammar Nazi --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If superlatives are so super, then why can't they be comparative too? Got you there! --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 13:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you meant "Well, well, ....."  :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Langan appears to have an inactive account: User_talk:Christopher_Langan. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 13:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Do we know if Stephen Hawking has an account on Wikipedia? If so, he would be a likely candidate. Bus stop (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope you were not serious about Langan as Bus Stop is with Hawking... o_O -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In what sense Hawkins is more intelligent than Richard Dawkins who also has an account in Wikipedia? --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You made them rhyme! :D -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

:) --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Also considering there are at least 10 active editors I know who either have or are close to getting PHD's, there are several active editors who are published authors and professors and lest us not forget Jimmy Wales who had the foresight to create this newar utopian compendium of human knowledge called Wikipedia. --Kumioko (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Having a Ph.D. is not a sign of intelligence, it is a sign of persistence. I speak from personal experience. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe insanity too. If we were really smart we would have found a better-paying career, and earlier in life... Adam Bishop (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

But then we might have to do work to fill the time in the day, rather than play on here. None of my friends who became lawyers edit the Ref Desk... --Mr.98 (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe there are many Wikipedians (active and inactive combined) who have doctorates and many of them are famous personalities. For example Andrew Schlafly has a Juris Doctor and an inactive Wikipedia account Andysch (talk · contribs). --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

We have List of notable Wikipedians (now a redirect). Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, SE, I got one of those too and it doesn't entitle you to be called doctor, it is a law degree at many schools. Personally I think we're overloaded on intelligence around her and underloaded on clue.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

User:ClueBot is very clueful.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

How many Nobel Laureates edit Wikipedia, in addition to User:Brian Josephson, who received the Nobel Prize in physics in 1973? He is an active editor, including articles on physics. Edison (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Has he ever been blocked for original work :) 188.157.211.6 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Some years ago, there was a question or discussion about the average educational attainment of the ref-desk regulars. IIRC, there seemed to be more with a doctorate or masters level education than might be expected from a random selection of the population. Astronaut (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well clearly that was before my emergence. Can we move on now from a most ridiculous question? Shadowjams (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Whence did you "emerge"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

From the shadows. -- Broadside Perceptor (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I recently came across a contributor who wrote 'Here I am, superior to Newton, Leibniz and Cauchy'. Unfortunately we were unable to comprehend the reasons for their edits and they were banned so no longer on Wikipedia I'm afraid. Dmcq (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, genius. Still so little understood (God knows, mine always has been). Self-proclaimed geniuses suffer the worst fate of all, so the more astute ones of us hide their lights under bushels and go on about their business relatively unmolested. Of course, it's not possible to always hide one's genius - our very words drip, nay overflow, with uncommon quality, sometimes in torrents even we are incapable of quelling. It's only those who wield the dishrags and floormops of history who can truly appreciate what it is they're cleaning up after the likes of us. Lucky them. But cleaning has, strangely, come to be regarded as an ignoble profession, so the rich and famous will never know what they're missing. Theirs is the true poverty. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, there is a parallel question to ask: who is the least intelligent Wikipedian? I suspect, however, that it might be as well to leave that unanswered... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Identifying a late-Victorian illustrator

I'm trying to identify the illustrators of the plates in various novels by Charlotte M. Yonge, published as part of a uniform one-volume series by Macmillan, London. In most cases, these plates date from the original publication, and are by easily identified artists (so far, Marian Huxley, W. J. Hennessy, Kate Greenaway, Herbert Gandy, J. Priestman Atkinson, Charles Oliver Murray, and Adrian Stokes).

However, there's two odd cases. The first is a 1901 volume containing Countess Kate and The Stokesley Secret. This has one plate only, with no title; there's a monogram in the lower left corner, of a superimposed A, W, and G (or possibly "C").

The second (1891) contains P's and Q's and Little Lucy's Wonderful Globe; I've identified the illustrator for the first, but the second is baffling me - all the plates are signed LFR. I'd particularly like to identify this one, as it's very densely illustrated.

Any idea who either of these might be? Shimgray | talk | 17:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

One down - it seems that LFR may be Lorenz Frølich; he's credited in the 1871 and 1881 editions. No luck on the enigmatic AWC/CWA/CAW/ACW/WAC/WCA, though... Shimgray | talk | 19:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the image in question? Just so we're looking at the same thing, here. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm impressed - yes, that's the one. Shimgray | talk | 20:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Purgatory, anyone?

Howdy all, I need some help. Google Books is great, but doesn't give me what I need--I need someone who has a copy of Robert Durling and Robert Martinez's translation of Purgatorio. Specifically, I need the title of an addendum that begins on page 595, 596, or 597, a section on Manfred (and I need to know which page it starts on). Thank you very much! (Can you please drop a note on my talk if you can help? Muchas gracias.) Drmies (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll answer here if that's all right, to save anyone else from duplicating the work. In the 2004 OUP paperback edition of Durling and Martinez's translation they have a section headed "Additional Notes". The one you want starts on p. 597, and is called "4. Vergil's Palinurus in Purgatorio and the Rudderless Ship of State". The title may not sound like it's on your subject, but it does deal with the comparison between Manfred and Palinurus from the Aeneid. --Antiquary (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what I need--I was working on Palinurus. Thanks Antiquary! Drmies (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

February 8

languages of Opera

sorry if this has been asked before. What languages, in order, would be useful for an Opera singer singing the standard repertoire to know and speak well/with good pronunciation (I would think obviously with Italian in first place). Thanks. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Italian first. Then German, French and Russian. Languages like English, Czech, Polish, Spanish, Danish, Romanian, Dutch et al also figure, but they're very much minor players unless you're singing in a specialised market. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

thanks. surprised spanish is so low as a romance language. could you try to put your second list Iafter the period after russian) in order outside of speciazlied markets, givin your reasoning? again, we are talking standard repertoire in a city like new york or san francisco. i don't know much about opera. --94.27.203.71 (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Our Spanish opera explains why there are so few Spanish language operas. If you do mean opera in the U.S. then English would move up into the second list, as translated operas are more common than Dutch or Romanian. You can use Operabase to view popularity of various countries operas. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Support for communism

I have to write a two to three page paper in support of communism using The Communist Manifesto as my source. I have read the manifesto but I'm having trouble coming up with arguments in favor of communism based solely on the document. What are some arguments/evidence in favor of communism that come from the manifesto that I can use in my essay? (I have decided to structure my essay with a paragraph detailing things the manifesto says are wrong with bourgeoisie controlled society and a paragraph saying how communism would fix those issues, so if the points could fall into those two categories it would be helpful.) Thanks in advance, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Some problems with capitalism present as themes in the Manifesto might be class polarisation (search for "Society as a whole is more and more splitting up..."); wealth concentration i.e. the expansion of the many and shrinkage of the few ("entire sections of the ruling classes..."); worker immiseration ("Masses of labourerers, crowded into the factory..."/""as the repulsivness of the work increases..."), and the tendency of that kind of society to experience boom-bust cycles of an increasingly dramatic nature ("Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production..."). Just a few pointers, hope they help get you started. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 21:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I got paragraphs written about the first two and got started on paragraphs for the last two, but I can't seem to find Marx's detailing of how communism would fix the last two. Where can I find what results a conversion to communism would have on the last two? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this support of communism back then or now ? Goals like "Free education for all children in public schools" and "Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production" would have sounded great back then. Now, of course, those have been largely eliminated in Western nations. StuRat (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know...my professor wasn't specific other than that the only two sources we could use were the manifesto and "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People" by Mao, however I have decided not to use the Mao speech. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

On the point of 'contradictions' you could boil it down to: Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man, and communism is the reverse. --Aspro (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)