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 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, [1]) 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[2] 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)

Nothing I said would have been outrageous or surprising to anyone who studied economics before 1970-80. Around then, the flawed but basically sound "Keynesian" consensus, (preceded in the USA by the similar, dominant Institutional economics ) was replaced by a succession of nonsenses. Simultaneously the "leading" departments stopped teaching courses on the history of economics, finance and accounting. I took the phrase "dark age of (macro)economics" referring to the present from Paul Krugman. It is the function of government to spend more than it taxes ("makes"), and this has necessarily been the case since the birth of monetary economies. Wynne Godley's prescient 1992 warning of the problems which would arise under the astoundingly bad design of the Euro is here. Government deficits are infinitely sustainable. Surpluses and practically speaking, even balanced budgets are not. In a normal country like the USA, government debt is really just a form of money. (Base) money (reserves, currency) is government debt. Everybody used to understand this. "Government credit and government currency are really one and the same thing" FDR's 2nd Fireside chat. If every actor in an economy spends less money than it "makes", then where on earth could this money come from in the first place? Somebody has to print the money, print the bonds, mint the coins.

The ECB prevents Greece from paying back what it borrowed, by artificially, for political purposes, creating a scarcity of Euros in Greece & hence mass unemployment and depression. A growing Greek economy would be much more able to pay off its debts, even denominated in Euros. The ECB even enforces haircuts on banks holding Greek debt, who are basically its relatively innocent victims too. But when Eurocrat apparatchiks replace elected leaders, suddenly the ECB becomes more generous, even though the apparatchiks make the debts less payable. It's exactly what the IMF did for decades to third world countries. Intentional infliction of misery & endless debt peonage.John Z (talk) 06:12, 9 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)

I've added to Nortonius' request there. The theses library at University of Cape Town would have it, if anyone has any contacts there? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:05, 10 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 [3]. 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". [4] --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)

Excuse me???? First of all, I am not the OP, if that is what you assume, and I am not even American, so please try not to sneer about what I don't know. Second, you don't need to insult anyone by calling them bad students, this is the reference desk, not a steam-letting out device for your temper. Then 3rd, in the article that you point out, there isn't even the word "capital", "Capitalism" or "property", so I really don't see how it can be an answer to my point about protection of property being linked to Capitalism. --Lgriot (talk) 09:21, 9 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 reframing 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)

We're not talking about courts of law here, Stu. Go back to the start and read the opening question and the OP's answer to Andy's response. In that sort of context, if the OP had been told or read somewhere that "Quranic verses and hadiths are used by proponents of honor killing to justify their beliefs", they'd have mentioned that they'd read it or been told it. But they didn't. Therefore, they made it up out of thin air. There's nothing wrong with coming up with thoughts that have no external origin, but if you want to check if they could possibly be true or not, you ask something like "I was just idly musing and it occurred to me that XYZ could be possible. Is it?" But that wasn't what the OP asked. They assumed, or pretended to assume, the Quranic verses thing as true, and asked questions only about the detail. Don't you think the very thing of which by their own admission they had no evidence is what they'd check out first? People who fail to do that are either insane, or trolls who think they're terribly smart and subtle by suggesting evil things and then later denying they were the proponents of any such theory. They want people to read this statement and accept it without question because the speaker is treating it as a given. It is exactly like "How many people who perished in the Nazi gas chambers were mis-identified as Jews, and therefore didn't deserve their fate?". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't worry too much about what the OP's opening question was or what their motives may or may not have been for asking it. The fact is, they rephrased it in such a way that, if it had been the question they had asked in the first place, you probably wouldn't have objected. Now, you can say that the cat was out of the bag by that time and that you could tell the OP's true motives were questionable from the way he phrased the original question. But that is unfair and unreasonable, in my view. Forget about the opening question, forget about everything else he wrote, just focus on the rephrased (and, IMHO, entirely reasonable) question "Do Muslim proponents of honor killing usually justify their beliefs using their religion?" and either answer it or don't. --Viennese Waltz 14:13, 9 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" [5], 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 [6], 2. Conservapedia [7], 3. Jihad Watch[8], 4. The Humanist magazine blog [9] --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: [10]). 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)

I knew I shouldn't have left those mushrooms out!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 11 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)

Thousands put in their claim every day.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 11 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)

Re the order of the languages outside the top three: It's a somewhat complex question, which rather depends on where you're talking about. In English-speaking countries, it's becoming more common to hear operas originally written in other languages sung in English instead, It's a tradition that used to be there, almost completely died out, but is returning. Add to that a pile of operas written in English in the first place; this includes composers from the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand ... all the usual suspects. So English is essential. But most English-language operas are never sung in places outside the anglosphere, just as there are various German, French, Italian and Russian operas that are limited to their home countries, even though those 4 languages account for the bulk of operas that are performed internationally. Now, go to Budapest and you'll hear a pile of Hungarian operas that have long performance traditions there but are virtually never sung anywhere else; same for Prague, Bucharest, Warsaw, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Lisbon, Rotterdam, Oslo, Helsinki, Belgrade etc. Some of the Czech operas of Leoš Janáček have entered the standard repertoire; but I cannot think of a single Finnish, Dutch, Norwegian, Polish, Danish, Swedish, Serbian, Croatian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Icelandic, Portuguese or even Spanish opera that's in the standard repertoire in the anglosphere. On that basis, I'd give positions 5 and 6 to English and Czech. But please take that with a strong OR caution. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Jack, thank you, this is immeasurably well-reasoned and awing in its completeness, thank you for the answer/followup! Below (new section) I ask the same question of languages of Literature, I'd love to hear your take on that question too :). Thanks again! --78.92.86.220 (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

How kind of you. Thank you. I might leave the literature question to those who know what they're talking about. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 13:36, 9 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: "There is not so much difference between the ideologies of capitalism and communism, you know. The difference is simple. Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man, and communism is the reverse." –John Gardner, The man from Barbarossa --Aspro (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It is sad and shocking to see US students are forced to write papers supporting Communist Manifesto. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? →Στc. 02:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Because...the spectre is haunting the world. :P --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It is sad and shocking to see that anyone believes a college student might be irreparably brain damaged by reading an important historical document and writing five hundred words to show that he grasped its major points. I weep for the future if American young people really can't be trusted to write for the devil's advocate on occasion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but we love Marx in America. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read it as a piece of its time... it was published in 1848 (though not translated into English until 1888) and was therefore very much influenced by the social and political conditions of that era. Maybe you could also contrast conditions 150 years ago with the current time where the "houses of power and landed gentry of old Europe--the bourgeoisie" are much less of a problem for the proletariat compared to the maturity of the "corporate world" now. Astronaut (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

They're just asking you to summarize Marx's arguments in favor of Communism. Don't view it as a "debate." Just figure out what Marx is saying. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You should consider changing your planned structure, to reflect the source text better. Spend more time describing what Marx said was wrong with capitalism, remembering that it is also a hymn to the successes of capitalism, because he doesn't say much about the virtues of communism. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been ages since I last read the Manifesto all the way through, although I've read it many times, but it doesn't do that great a job, I recall, of explaining what communism's intermediate goal or nature would be. There's a lyrical section that praises both the immense achievements and condemns the huge problems that capitalism has brought about, and the next-to-final section (before the peroration) posits an immediate programme and set of demands upon which the working class can unite with the most liberal sections of the bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia (free professionals), such as universal suffrage, universal education and the break-up of feudal lands. But millions of people who considered or consider themselves Marxists have disagreed, sometimes bloodily, over what communism is and would mean after you've achieved most of that basic programme (which many Western nations have done over the last 160 years). So even though the preamble to the Manifesto promises to declare who the communists are (not just a pejorative name to call your opponents) and what they propose, and even though it's inspired millions of people (including me and those with whom I disagree violently, e.g. Mao Tse-tung), and even though it has a brilliant critique of early industrial capitalism, it isn't necessarily a very solid source to argue for communism. Requiring you to combine that with On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People, which is really about something entirely different (it was the prelude to the Hundred Flowers Campaign which Wikipedia says lasted for only six weeks) is silly because all they basically share in common is the word communism and the lack of a positive description of what communism is. It's like arguing for Christianity using only the Book of Genesis and Luther's Ninety-Five Theses. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

February 9

Pixelated

[11]

What does the phrase below the street name say?Curb Chain (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You can ask an Edmontonian Wikipedian. See Category:Wikipedians in Edmonton.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The sign has a baseball field and many sources say he was called "Edmonton's Mr. Baseball" so that would be my guess. The initial letter doesn't look quite like E to me but the rest is very plausible. If the whole thing is written in quotes then I suppose the start could be "E. The end also looks like l" with a quote. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

PrimeHunter is right: [12] --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Three in religion/mythology

Why does the number three show up so often in various religions and mythologies? (e.g. the Christian Trinity; the Hindu Trimurti; the Triune Goddess in Wicca; Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades in Greek mythology; etc.) --108.227.30.246 (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably the same reason why 2 (God and the Devil, Yin and Yang) does, they are low numbers. StuRat (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

3_(number)#In_religion has some information, as do bluelinks from that article. --Jayron32 04:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Stu that it is because it is a low number. But for Georges Dumezil it was part of a trifunctional hypothesis. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Because Three Is a Magic Number.[13] 24.38.31.81 (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Internment camps

Who was the first to suggest that the japanese should be put in internment camps during ww2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.20.212 (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the Panamanian government began interning people one day after Pearl Harbor: [14] -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's difficult to say who was the first individual to suggest Japanese internment, the decision likely came from a government meeting that was composed of multiple individuals. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As I understand, internment of enemy nationals during a war was a standard practice at the time, so no spark of inspiration would have been needed for that. What made the Japanese internment particularly notable was the treatment of American citizens this way. It looks like Japanese American internment discusses this in some detail. Wnt (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A loyal citizen of an enemy country, at large in the country at war with their beloved homeland, could reasonably be expected to run around doing sabotage, espionage, disinforming the populace, and generally doing mischief. It was absolutely standard to intern or deport enemy aliens in any war. I suppose you could get their "promise to behave," but such a process seems unrealistic. The unusual aspect of the Japanese internment was to lock up US citizens who had absolutely not demonstrated any disloyalty, but who came from the enemy country, or their ancestors came from the country. This was not applied is so blatant a fashion to US citizens of German or Italian origin in WW2, though there were cases where legitimate enemy aliens were interned and their US citizen family members went with them, supposedly voluntarily. Some non-Japanese descendants of German internees have conflated the internment of enemy aliens and US citizens. Who first suggested it? If I recall correctly, the military wanted Japanese nationals and Japanese-Americans interned in Hawaii and California, because of a perception that they were likely to do espionage and sabotage for Japan. A secondary motive was greed on the part of their neighbors and business competitors, comparable to Germans who wanted the property of Jews. Many West Coast Japanese were forced to abandon their homes and businesses, or to sell them for pennies on the dollar. This led to a man I know being interned in a concentration camp, with armed guards and barbed wire, when he was 4 years old, and his father losing a previously successful business. Edison (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Only a small fraction of Japanese-American citizens in Hawaii were interned... AnonMoos (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing which I've wondered about this process is to what degree these people were actually hostages. The Japanese had substantial skill in biological and chemical warfare, which if I recall they exercised rather freely in China; they initially had aircraft carriers and later worked on long-range bombers capable of striking the West Coast. Yet for some reason they never made such attacks.... (I should emphasize that I am not justifying the internment here, but this does make it less incomprehensible) Wnt (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't aid it. The reason the Japanese didn't strike the West Coast is because it's really far away. They did not in fact have bombers that could reach it — they never built the Nakajima bombers, and I suspect they couldn't have even if they had really tried and weren't under bombardment. (The American B-29, which has nowhere near that range for combat, was already a major technological feat in and of itself, more expensive than making the atomic bomb. Even the B-2 Spirit has less range than that.) Had they won at Midway and kept going east, they might have taken Hawaii and been able to inch close and closer to being within striking distance of the continental US. But they did not, and could not. The distance was just too far, and after Midway and Coral Sea they lost the ability to make major operations in the Pacific anyway.

I think the idea that moving Japanese-Americans into camps would somehow deter the Imperial Japanese tactics is ridiculous. That was certainly not why it was done and it was certainly not a factor in why the Japanese did not attack the West Coast in any number. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it better if they are in camps anyway? That way if the Japanese were concerned about killing people of Japanese descent in the US they could just avoid the centralised camps and they're sweet. Nil Einne (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope you're joking. "We're gonna lock you up for the duration of the war, deprive you of your home, your job, your livelihood, and your civil and human rights, and expose you to ongoing stigma when we finally release you. But don't worry, it's for your own protection". Even if that had been the justification, it would have been outrageous. But that wasn't why they did it. It was naked racism. People who were born in the USA and were just as fully U.S. citizens as the President was, were treated abominably because they were assumed to be more supportive of Japan than of their own country and hence a risk to U.S. national security, merely because they were of Japanese origin. Australia did the same barbaric thing to people of German descent in WWI, btw. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not joking no. I don't deny the practice was horrific but it's irrelevant to my point. Wnt suggested that the people were locked up to stop the Japanese bombing the West Coast of the US. Mr. 98 pointed out this was dumb in a number of ways. But more then that, as I pointed out it's flawed in the first instance. There's no reason to think locking them up would discourage the Japanese from bombing or attacking with chemical or biological weapons the West Coast. In fact simple logic suggest it would have made it easier for the Japanese to bomb the West Coast if they really somehow discouraged by the risk of harming people of Japanese descent (for which there may be no evidence but it's a moot point) since now they simply have to avoid the camps (well perhaps saving the people in them once they're done bombing/whatever). So you don't even have to get in to the rest, Wnt's suggestion clearly makes no sense even if you ignore the history and evidence. I don't get "But don't worry, it's for your own protection" has to do with anything since I never suggested that, simply pointed out Wnt's suggestion was inherently flawed since from the Japanese POV it was better if they were in camps, not worse. P.S. I was primarily replying to what Mr.98 said and didn't really properly read what Wnt said. Wnt did mention 'hostages' which may mean he was suggesting the Americans detained people of Japanese descent in camps to warn the Japanese they could turn the camps in to death camps if they desire. This is a different possibility and isn't so simple since them being in camps obviously means it would have been easier for the US to commit such a genocide, but it also gives the Japanese places they can concentrate on to attempt to 'liberate' before the US committed such a genocide. Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Britons in the French and Indian War

Approximately how many British colonists fought in the French and Indian War? The page states some 40,000 people but to me that doesn't sound realistic. Are there any citations that can support this? Thanks! 64.229.180.189 (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The figure in the Wikipedia article cites This book. You could read that book and see how they came up with it. --Jayron32 04:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The article says that 42,000 regulars and militia were used. Not just colonists. There were 18,000 sent to Carillon while 6,000 went to the Ohio in 1758. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a hard thing to measure. First of all, understand the three general types of service on land during the war: regulars (full-time soldiers), provincials (colonial units, usually enlisted to serve for about a year on an expedition), and militia (civilians who served part-time in emergencies). The Wikipedia article conflates the last two categories, a common error. (Writers who mistakenly think George Washington served primarily in the militia are legion; Washington hated the militia and had as little to do with it as possible.)

One number various sources agree on is that 16,835 provincials served 1759. (Search Google books for "16,835 provincials", without the quotes, to find some sources.) This appears to be the year that saw the most numerous provincial enlistment. One source says that "From 1759 to 1762, 51277 provincial troops were in the field", but he is certainly counting guys who served multiple enlistments as multiple people. The number of colonists who served in the militia without ever enlisting in a provincial unit is probably significant. Historian Fred Anderson estimates that about 50% of men of military age in New England served in some capacity during the war. How many men that works out to be, I don't know. —Kevin Myers 17:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mute and motionless

Anyone have any idea of the provenance of the phrase "mute and motionless"? It yields a surprisingly large number of hits on Google, and I can't seem to find any single famous source. This is specifically in reference to Edwin Austin Abbey: Horace Howard Furness wrote of "the laws of his [Abbey's] own 'mute and motionless' art," with the "mute and motionless" in quotations in the original. Earlier in the speech, he quotes Shakespeare, but this doesn't seem to be a Shakespearean reference. --Thegreenj 03:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Milton has it in Eikonoklastes (1649) xxvii. 222: "To be struck as mute and motionless as a Parlament of Tapstrie in the Hangings." I don't think this was a very famous work, so the phrase's popularity is probably due to other significant uses. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The characterization of painting, specifically, as "mute and motionless" can be found in Thomas Campbell's "Valedictory Stanzas" addressed to the actor John Philip Kemble, in which he states that acting escapes the deficiencies of the other arts, "For ill can Poetry express / Full many a tone of thought sublime, / And Painting, mute and motionless, / Steals but a glance of time." Deor (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

UK Parliament - 3rd reading

I seem to recall that it is possible in the House of Parliament, for a single MP to shout "Object!" at a certain stage of a Bill's progress, for it to fail completely, and that this happened quite recently (legislation for a full pint of beer?). Can someone point me to the protocol for this to happen please?--TammyMoet (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It can't make it fail completely, it can postpone a bill by stopping it from going through 'on the nod' (without debate) if they're out of time (and this does have the practical effect of stopping a private member's bill that doesn't have government support) - here's a blog entry from Kerry McCarthy MP where she explains some of the ins and outs from a time where she 'object!'ed to a private members bill on tainted blood --Saalstin (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, it's very interesting. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The shouting of 'object' comes in only when a Bill is being considered after the end of ordinary business. Each day the House of Commons sets a time known as the 'moment of interruption' and after that time, Bills can only make progress if they are unopposed. Shouting 'object' signifies that the Bill is opposed. The most common time is for Private Member's Bills which are debated between 9:30 AM and 2:30 PM on Fridays. All Bills which are not reached in this time are mentioned at 2:30 PM, and if no MP shouts 'object' they can make progress. In practice, MPs opposed to Bills that are not at the top of the list deliberately speak for a long time during the debate so that they have the ability to shout 'object' on the Bill they do not like. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and if you're watching BBC Parliament at that point, it's pretty depressing. A long list of bills is read out, and some designated MP just calls 'object' over and over again. I understand why, but it's still weird to watch. 86.166.41.126 (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Watching BBC Parliament is always pretty depressing - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You'd think that, knowing they are being filmed and footage may at least be used on the news, MPs would avoid acting quite so childishly in parliament. I mean, who seriously boo and jeers someone they disagree with? And if they have a soundbite joke they're working up to, must they spend 5 minutes smugly approaching it? 86.163.211.160 (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. has a similar procedure (although without the theater of someone yelling "Object!"). Congress passes thousands of noncontroversial bills and resolutions without a vote. In 2009, a member proposed a bill to recognize Pi Day. For some reason, another member demanded a vote, and the bill passed with 10 "nays" and a lot of rolled eyes. For the record, the opponents of Pi Day were Chaffetz, Flake, Heller, Johnson (IL), Miller (FL), Neugebauer, Paul, Pence, Poe (TX) and Shuster -- all Republicans. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the best argument for the 'object' procedure is the occasion when the Texas state legislature honoured Albert deSalvo for his "unconventional techniques involving population control and applied psychology". Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The passing of legislation without a formal vote is called passage by Unanimous consent. That article may provide a good reading related to this topic. --Jayron32 00:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Source of inspiration for the "Vitruvian Man" by Leonardo da Vinci

• 
• Da Vinci Vitruve Luc Viatour.jpg
  Da Vinci Vitruve Luc Viatour.jpg

Please bring your attention to your Wikipedia article on Hildegard von Bingen (Benedictine Abbess) of Eibingen, Germany, during the Holy Roman Empire. View her illustration in 1165 A.D. which depicts her "Universal Man" from her book Divinorum Operum. The scope, positioning, and subject matter (even down to the center part in the man's hair) is profoundly, in this observer's opinion, the exact illustration which inspired Leonardo da Vinci to perfect in what later became known as his "Vitruvian Man" sketch. Hildegard captured the concept long before Leonardo. Her texts on medicine and mysticism were circulated during her speaking tours away from the convents. Her prior work could have easily have found its way from southern Germany to libraries in Italy. It is clear that the nun's illustration in 1165 A.D. was an inspired masterpiece, long before that of Leonardo da Vinci circa 1487. (J.R. USA 2012)10:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.25.86 (talk)

I'd put that illumination more in the tradition of medieval medical/astrological depictions of the human body (one such that I can find in Commons is here). For a recent article about a possible precursor of Leonardo's drawing in its geometrical or "Vitruvian" aspect, see this. Deor (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that both images show a human figure within a circle, I can't see much resemblance. The poses are very different, for a start. And Liber Divinorum Operum is an account of Hildegard's visions, not a medical or anatomical text. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a Vitruvian aspect to the Hildegard image. Drawing someone in a circle is not a Vitruvian image. There has to be an illustration of proportionality between a human figure and both a square and a circle at the very minimum. See Vitruvian man for a nice description of the bare basics of illustrating Vitruvius' principles. It is anything but clear that these works are directly connected. The Hildegard image looks like some combination of divine revelation plus astrology (the grid with its little Zodiac-style illustrations), to my eyes, but I'm not an expert on the period. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

languages of Literature

sorry if this has been asked before. What languages, in order, would be useful for a Literature student who is interested in the most standard literature studied internationally to read and understand in the original? (I would think obviously with English in first place.) Thanks. --78.92.86.220 (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd think that French and Latin would need to be high on your list. They have both been, in the past, languages that educated people were expected to be able to read, and they are both the original languages of lots and lots of important and wonderful literature.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Spanish should be quite high too. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Chinese; there is a lot of Chinese lit, I think, but not necessarily widely studied in the West. German certainly doesn't top the list, but they have quite a literary tradition too. As for the ultimate classics (by Homer), you'd have to learn Ancient Greek. I also know that Russian, Arabic, and Persian all have literary traditions, but I know very little about that. I agree with above, French nears the top of the list, and Latin is paramount for many of the "classics". Falconus^{p t c} 22:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, in order for me, I think most of the literature I have studied is originally French (because I have studied French), but Latin, German, and Russian potentially come next. I should state that I have not studied a lot of literature, other than French, and a lot of the literature I have studied is quite old. Falconus^{p t c} 22:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Very few Greek works are extant, although it depends on the weighting you give to the work importance-wise. I don't think it makes up that much of the overall picture, although it does include notable works. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "Very few". If you go to a college bookstore near a university with an active Classics department, you can often see the Loeb Classical Library volumes with green covers taking up a lot of shelf space... AnonMoos (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There's also another thousand years' worth of Greek literature after that (not in classical Attic Greek, but sometimes in a reasonable approximation). Adam Bishop (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There's an article about the Western canon, with links to a number of "canonical" lists. Browsing through some of them, I might add Italian to the list of languages already mentioned. Pfly (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Literature#Laureates_per_country or de:Liste_der_Nobelpreisträger_für_Literatur#Rangliste_nach_Ländern (both lists use different counting methods) might also give a clue. English, French and German authors dominate the lists. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not about countreis Pp.paul, but about languages. Therefore we should add up countries with similar languages. That changes the rang of most important language for reading literature of quality. 88.9.108.139 (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The question is kinda pointless because it's too broad. It's like asking "What's the best sports team in the world?" You can give answers to the question and some hold more truth than others, but it's all subjective and based on comparing things that are uncomparable and laying weights on different aspects.

The question needs to be what you want to achieve by studying literature. That would be much more answerable. There's masses of Chinese literature and many great books among them, but if you are interested in the Western canon (wich is certainly the most influential worldwide) you can forget about Chinese. If you are interested in how the Western world became what it is today Latin is pretty important for you, but if you are interested in current literature you can forget Latin and Spanish would be much more important.

But even learning a single language usually opens up more literature to you than you could ever study in a lifetime. Even if the language looks insignificant in the global eye like Icelandic, Frisian or Low Saxon. They provide enough literary material to keep you studying all your life. --::Slomox:: >< 10:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Does Geoff Ryman's "The Child Garden" have a happy ending?

My girlfriend and I enjoy reading aloud together. My turn to pick the book is coming, and I was thinking about choosing The Child Garden, by Geoff Ryman, which I read a long time ago and remember liking a lot. My girlfriend doesn't like death- she even gets unhappy, when we watch nature shows, if the animals die. If somebody dies at the end of our book, my girlfriend will be very annoyed with me, and I can't remember how the book ended. The Wikipedia article doesn't have a full summary; can someone who has read this book lately tell me if everyone survives more or less intact? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the book (it is now on my list), but while searching around I found this quote from the book:

“Everything goes, everything is lost, eventually. But if something is good, it doesn't matter what happens. The ending is still happy.” ― Geoff Ryman, The Child Garden: A Low Comedy

That doesn't tell you how the book ends and I am happy that I didn't spoil it for myself, but maybe it's worth showing to your girlfriend? Lhcii (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What am I legally eligible to donate for $?

I'm getting the short end of the stick more often in life than I should handle, and the adult world is looking too abysmal for me to enter it. (So will December 21, 2012 prolong my youth? Let's see!)

One short end is that I can't donate blood/plasma. The federal regulations assume that ~20 years after leaving Germany, servicemembers and their families will get vCJD. I haven't been to Germany since 1990, where I had my toddlerhood.

(Why can't they have a test done first to disprove the presence of vCJD?)

With the economy how it is today, going to college amounts to gambling, with the jackpot being getting hired (fast becoming an elusive dream on the par of an actual gambling jackpot.) Hence, I may be calling a gambling debt counseling service to get counseled about my college expenditures. (No joke here.)

Friends donate plasma. However, what CAN I donate for cash, and in a way that's still legal?

If you dare say "recyclables" - tell me, given that friends can donate up to $300 worth every month, then how many pounds is $300 worth of each of the following: aluminum, copper, tin, glass, or plastic?

Or if it's something else I don't know, I'm open to ideas. Thank you kindly. --70.179.174.101 (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sperm? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please calculate the transportation & meal costs in the commute between 66502 and the nearest sperm bank while in a PT Cruiser Limited Edition. Is the donation still viable after figuring in? --70.179.174.101 (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not... see vCJD#Sperm donor restrictions. Astronaut (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Donating any sort of bodily fluid is hardly going to yield a substantial income. Surely "donation" is the wrong word if payment is involved, or else why not "donate" your time? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If your current situation really isn't working for you financially, consider making a dramatic change, like moving to a place where you are more likely to find work and continuing your education there if you are so inclined. It might not be a bad idea to take time out from college and just work for a couple of years. That's what I did during the worst recession of the 2nd half of the 20th century. The jobs I had were lousy and low-paying, at drugstores and fast-food places, but they paid just enough for me to live a meager but still fun and debt-free existence in shared apartments. When I returned to college, I continued the lousy and low-paid jobs part-time, and they allowed me to limit my debt considerably. Even during a recession, not-so-great jobs tend to be available because of high turnover to people who are literate, sober, and show up dependably for their work shift. Marco polo (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I attended college during the same era (early '80s) and had many of the same concerns as you have. My solution (and that of thousands of low-income students both then and still today): Go to college during the day, and work nights and weekends. Yes, you can do it, if you truly want to succeed.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Another idea is to join the Peace Corps, if that sort of thing would suit you. It seems like an interesting-but-not-expensive way to spend a few years, and even from a purely self-interested standpoint, the skills and connections one acquires are transferrable. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You should also get your health (body and mind) checked, if you feel that you are not like yourself and that you could get more from life. There are certainly pro-bono doctors who could take a look at you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.36.33.29 (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you overestimate the ability to get quality pro-bono medical care in the United States. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the IP geolocates to a university in Kansas. Maybe in this university the students are somehow covered. 88.9.108.139 (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The thing the OP does not seem to understand after multiple postings on the same topic is that 'donating' does not mean 'selling', in any way whatsoever. When you donate something, you give it for free. Voluntarily. If you want to get money from something, you have to 'sell'. Now, on the 'voluntarily' vein, if you want voluntary work - i.e. donating your time - there are plenty of voluntary organizations out there who may take you on, and you will learn valuable and transferrable skills from, which may lead you into a good paid job in the future. Be patient. If the mountain won't come to Mohammed.... KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

African American Muslims in New York City

Are these African American Muslims are reverts or are they immigrants from Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Mali, Niger, Chad, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Senegal and Gambia or are they both groups of reverts and African immigrants from Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Mali, Niger, Chad, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Senegal and Gambia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.77 (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean "converts" and not "reverts." "Revert" means, "to go back to." "Convert" means, "someone who has changed religions." --Mr.98 (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there are both kinds. P.S. to Mr.98 -- Some prefer to use the word "revert", since they claim that all humanity is "naturally" Muslim to start with... AnonMoos (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's also true that many African Americans are descended from Muslims brought to America as slaves two or more centuries ago. Marco polo (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect very many, since many of the slave traders in Africa were themselves Muslim, and enslaving fellow Muslims would be frowned upon. StuRat (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Islamic slave-traders dominated the eastern-African slave trade (especially after the Omani capture of Zanzibar in 1698), while the western-African maritime slave trade was always dominated by Europeans. Anyway, you can see Moors Sundry Act of 1790, Bilali Document, etc. -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The story of Islam within African-American communities is complicated by the Nation of Islam, which is something of a political and religious movement, and not merely a "denomination" of Islam. Among African-American muslims, there are a multitude of ways in which they may become Muslim; some are born into traditional Muslim families, some have immigrated from countries where Islam is a dominant religion, some have been introduced to the faith via the Nation of Islam, some have converted to more traditional Islamic faiths, if you can conceive of it, you will find lots of people who meet that idea. There is no universal story, and there is not one kind of "African-American Muslim". It is a very diverse group with diverse backgrounds. --Jayron32 19:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mosques in New York City, Detroit, Dearborn, Minneapolis, Buffalo

Is there a website where there is a list of mosques in New York City, Detroit, Dearborn, Minneapolis, and Buffalo, New York? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.77 (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If you type "Mosques in <BLANK>" into Google, replacing the name "<BLANK>" with the name of the city you are looking for, you can find the answer faster than waiting here for an answer. To be frank, anyone who answers this question is very likely to do exactly that (I did and found information you seek), so there's not much point in waiting for someone else to do what you could easily do yourself. --Jayron32 19:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mosques by Kyrgyz, Tajik, Iranian, Kazakh, Uzbek, Turkmen, Azeri, Turkish, Indonesian, Malaysian, African communities

How come there is no mosque founded and authorized by the following communities: Kyrgyz, Tajiks from Tajikistan, Iranian Shi'ites, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Azeris, Turkish, Indonesian, Malaysian African Muslims from Nigeria, Niger, Mali, Gambia, Sierra Leone, Guniea, Senegal, Chad, and Burkina Faso ? I only find mosques authorized and founded by Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Afghanis, Indian Muslims and Arabs Sunnis and Arab Shi'as? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.77 (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

First off, which country are you referring to? Britain? AnonMoos (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The IP geolocates to Toronto. Mosques (churches, temples, synagogues and the like) are established when there is a population of believers large enough, interested enough and with sufficient funds to do so. I have known religious groups who have met in living rooms for many years, and others who are still so meeting. Others have amicably shared formal premises. There are a number of Catholic and Protestant churches in Toronto (and likely elsewhere) that have dual congregations: one that worships in English and a second that worships in Japanese or Korean, for example. Bielle (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This guy is always asking about Toronto. There are some churches that have an Arabic service too, and lots more that have Italian and Portuguese. Anyway, for mosques I don't know but I imagine the Kyrgyz population is not very large. There is definitely a Turkish mosque in the Toronto area though, I think it's in Markham. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The Canadian Turkish Islamic Heritage Association's "Pape mosque" "is one of the earliest mosques in Toronto", dating back to the 1980s. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There are three in Toronto and one in Scarborough in the List of mosques in Canada. Of these, the Jami Mosque appears to serve the Balkan community. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I meant USA. 70.29.35.77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.166 (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's a tall order. You could start with List of mosques in the United States, I suppose. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I presume [15] can provide some info on mosques for Indonesians in the US. Malaysian Islamic Study Group (while directed at students) could probably provide some help for Malaysians (and incidentally the article is probably a copyvio). Also I'm guessing the Khutbah is commonly delivered in English in many mosques in the US [16]. If not it's probably more likely to be in Arabic [17] then say Urdu. So I'm not entirely sure whether it's such a big deal who founded the mosque. Nil Einne (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Black Canadians Caribbeans

I met a Black Canadian who is from Antigua and Barbuda. We had a nice chat but it struck me that how did he immigrate to Canada when Canada doesn't have a high commission in that nation. When did Canada accept these immigrants from these nations that doesn't host a Canadian high commission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.77 (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this will be the result of both countries being part of the Commonwealth. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Usually, if a country doesn't have a diplomatic mission in another country, any issues that would usually be dealt with by a mission there are covered by a mission in a third country. In this case, the Canadian High Commission, Bridgetown (Barbados) has responsibility for several neighbouring countries, including Antigua and Barbuda. Note that there is no reason why a country cannot accept visitors or immigrants from a country with which it has no diplomatic relations, anyway. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact, sometimes it's encouraged. For instance, immigrants from Cuba to the US are given privileged status relative to other potential immigrants, even though the two countries don't have official diplomatic relations. See Wet feet, dry feet policy. Meelar (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

See also Black Canadians for some of the history of migration. BrainyBabe (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

February 10

International treaties, agreements etc

Why are treaties, signed agreements etc so important in politics. I mean there's no grand entity to enforce such things; it's basically down to the parties themselves so why are they used? --TuringMachine17 (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've always wondered this myself. I think the idea is that states will be motivated to act in accordance with the treaties so that they'll be trusted next time they need to reach an agreement with other states. That doesn't seem to work very well, though, particularly with large influential states. --Tango (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there are "grand entities" to enforce treaties, such as the World Trade Organization, which enforces trade agreements. Any member must do as the WTO tells them, or they risk being ejected, which would mean they would then have stiff tariffs on anything they tried to export. StuRat (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The WTO would be the last organization I'd list in terms of treaty enforcement. The UN would be a lot higher on the list, but of course, all of that is subject to my comment below. Shadowjams (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the treaty. But, sometimes you get something in exchange, sometimes you want to be in good standing with your partners, and sometimes weapons enforce it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.108.139 (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

With all things human, organizations like this, and laws in general, are entirely based upon power. "Law" in the modern western sense is not sacrosanct and passed down from high. Modern western rule of law works almost entirely because the people accept it as legitimate. There are plenty of ways to have legitimacy, whether through the western model, religion, cult of personality, monarchy, etc. Assuming you come from a western law tradition, the concept of a law without enforcement may seem strange to you. In fact, in most western democracies the idea is hard to fathom within those bounds. But "international law" is a great example of "law if we want to", an it's not like that concept's really all that distant. The American Civil War is a pretty clear example of that concept in practice, and there are innumerable examples throughout the history of civilizations that seem to respect the rule of law.

Short answer is this: if you want a standard legal interpretation then you need to be a lot more specific about your question. But if you're interested in the broader concept, the question is more one of statesmanship than of law. Shadowjams (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Darius III and Greek

I remember reading somewhere, I think it was in Peter Green's "Alexander of Macedon", that Darius III could speak Attic Greek. What are the sources for this? Is it historically plausible that Persian kings were educated to speak Greek? Cevlakohn (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget that Darius III was not raised as a royal heir or even as one of the immediate royal family. He was a "distant relative" and was employed as a royal courier before the machinations of others put him on the throne. It seems to me plausible that a professional royal courier would have learned to speak one or more languages of important foreign powers to and from whom he might have to convey official documents, and in any case it has been a widespread practice throughout history for well-educated people to learn one or more foreign languages formally, and for tradespeople and others to acquire them in the course of their everyday affairs, but I'm sure someone with more specific knowledge of the period will have more certain information. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.161 (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It would seem more likely for him to speak Ionic Greek (a near relative of Attic Greek), since Ionic was the language of some of Persia's most important western possessions. 76.24.104.200 (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

pulling out all the stops

"Pulling out all the stops" is a metaphor in non-musical contexts, evoking opening all the valves in a pipe organ so the thing is playing at full blast. My question is whether this is ever done literally when playing organ music, particularly on big church organs. I'd imagine it would sound awful, but don't know. If it's actually done in real music, I wonder if there's one of those Latin or Italian words for it, that would appear in the score. Thanks. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The place where I came across it was when my music teacher was playing Widor's Toccata from his 5th Symphony - the extremely loud passage in it has most, if not all, stops out. The church organ he was playing had one stop which, when pulled, took about another 20 with it! (Mind you I was only about 14 at the time and in awe of this cool dude who could play stuff like that so I wasn't really looking at the organ or the music, for that matter...) --TammyMoet (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The effect is certainly used, though in modern organs you don't actually need to pull out all the individual stops, as there is usually a button to do it. See Tutti, though in my experience the term "full organ" is more common. --ColinFine (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. FWIW, I've also heard "tutti" as meaning an ensemble number in an opera, like the last scene of The Marriage of Figaro, but the article doesn't mention that usage. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

More information at Organ console. Alansplodge (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Do audio books normally include a pdf (or epub, djuv or whatever) version

Do they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.170.181.95 (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Not normally, no. I dare say it does happen, but the publishers will usually release audio books and ebooks separately, and charge for each. - Cucumber Mike (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC).

February 11

What is the tax rate on ill-gotten gains?

This isn't my question, I'm reposting someone else's, but I'm curious...

"Hypothetical, say you are a criminal, but want to avoid the fate of Al Capone and get busted for not paying your taxes. Can you use the capital gains rate if you have some sort of fraud that takes more than a year for the payoff?

The best would be some sort of crime that pays off after the statute of limitations, and you only have to pay the lower capital gains rate. Win Win Win!"

what do you guys make of it --80.99.254.208 (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. The period for the tax authorities to claim begins when they become aware of a potential claim. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Kitty, I think two things are being conflated here. The part about statute of limitations applies to the original crime (hence "ill-gotten"), not to the tax fraud. The context I copied this from was about large-scale bank fraud, sorry I didn't make this clear. So the part I copied in quotation marks is this: "What if you commit a crime that results in you getting a payoff 15 years later, after the statute of limitations expires." I don't know what kind of crime would pay off after such a long time. The point is, can you just drop off a sack of money at the IRS, saying, "Here's 30 percent of a bunch of cash I just got from crimes 15 years ago. It hasn't paid off until now." So, say it really is capital gains (you put money into committing the crime): then is that 30% really the capital gains percentage? Would this happen as the poster imagines? Do you have to tell the IRS how you got your money? I think the poster I quoted is raising an interesting idea... --80.99.254.208 (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You can, but you are very likely to be audited. And remember, what you tell the IRS can be conveyed to law enforcement.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There are often legal means to avoid applying the statute of limitation. Ib30 (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Inventing, but not for the army

If a company invents something which has a double civilian and military use, does it have some means of restricting the legal use to civilians? Ib30 (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's real recourse is limiting distribution to companies they know will not resell to the military, putting that in their sales contracts, and refusing further orders to resellers who violate those terms. I don't think the courts will go very far in enforcing it, not for political reasons, but because it is hard to show damages from unwanted sales, so it is mostly on the company.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

But, any government, even from 'reliable' countries, would be able to produce it someday (maybe when the patent runs out),wouldn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ib30 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The state has to put limits on the usage. The company cannot restrict "legal use" by fiat, other than maybe tying it up in contracts in some way. But that's a pretty weak method. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That's clear to me that the company cannot just put a tag on something and say "do not use if you are the army". But, which are the legal ways of restricting the use? How do chemicals, for example, get included in the Chemical Weapons Convention? Is it really necessary that their potential for harming people be demonstrated in the practice? Or, could a chemical company, that just invented a new chemical, try to get this chemical included on the grounds that its chemical is equally dangerous to other banned chemicals? This hypothetical scenario is, of course, excluding non-legal use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ib30 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that a private company could become aware that a chemical was particularly useful in military action without having a contract with the military; think of the testing. There has been controversy that states were importing sedatives used in lethal injection execution, which are no longer made in the US, and the European companies that make them have taken steps to tighten distribution to try to make sure that their products are not used for a legal governmental purpose with which they disagree.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If it was the US government and they wanted it bad enough, they'd reverse engineer it privately; you might never know. Salve your conscience by tripling the price.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you "salve your conscience" with money? Ib30 (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If not, then don't market your invention.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is an international body that gets together every now and then and can add chemicals to their lists of prohibited munitions if they want to. Private companies don't do this. As for trying to increase the cost on things, be aware that governments usually have some powers for compulsory licensing, meaning they can exploit your patents without giving you more than "fair" compensation. The US government even has the ability to declare your invention secret and then license it for itself, all without your input or approval whatsoever. Note that in certain domains (e.g. nuclear technology of any sort) the US government has very strong statutes in place to allow them to compulsory license the technology and even prevent you from using it yourself! --Mr.98 (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A patent would be the most obvious way, but as you said, that's for a limited time. I suppose you could restrict the distribution chain of a product somewhat, if you were the only one to manufacture it, through various contracts. But at any time Congress (assuming the U.S. here) could pass a law and get around those contracts or other restrictions. There's also patent provisions to keep patents secret in the interest of national security, and there may be similar features there that'd allow the government to use them. I'm no expert on patent law, but I think that the federal government/military generally respects patent law, and can be sued for it (see sovereign immunity for the big picture), but there may be exceptions to that. Finally, absent some sort of intellectual property protection, or similar restriction, a design or method is almost impossible to keep restricted once the cat's out of the bag. Shadowjams (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Number 27 and Isis

I read that the number 27 - the sacred number of the Egyptian goddess Isis. Where can I find confirmation or source? Странник27 (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll start, hopefully someone else will provide more info. Numbers in Egyptian mythology says "2, 3, 4, 7, and their multiples and sums" were sacred numbers in Egypt. (So presumably 27, as 3x3x3, could be a candidate.) The cite is to a book called "Meaning in Many: The Symbolism of Numbers," Symbol & Magic in Egyptian Art, by Richard H. Wilkinson, Thames and Hudson, 1994, page 127. That might be a place to start.

Searches on Google Books and Google Scholar for "sacred number" +Isis generally turn up references more than a century old. This doesn't mean that there was not really a concept of sacred numbers in ancient Egypt, but may mean that the idea doesn't have much weight with current scholarship - which would mean there may not actually be a lot of evidence for it.--184.147.128.151 (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that this subject was more fully developed in Greek culture, so if 27 (i.e. 3³) was sacred to Isis, it probably would have been the Hellenistic-then-Roman cross-cultural "oriental mystery cult" Isis, not the old Pharaonic-period Isis... AnonMoos (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

February 21 Language Day

What is the point if whole world except Bangladesh doesn't celebrate February 21st? Different ethnic groups doesn't celebrate their language on that day. If I am wrong about that point, then proof me that one ethnic group or more that does the celebration of February 21 like Punjabis, Gujaratis, Tamils, Assamese, Sindhis, Pashtuns, Baloches, Marathis, Oriyas, Telugus, Kannadas, Malayalis, Persians, Azeris, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Swedes, Norwegians, and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.8 (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Because "the date represents the day in 1952 when students demonstrating for recognition of their language, Bangla, as one of the two national languages of the then Pakistan, were shot and killed by police in Dhaka, the capital of what is now Bangladesh", which has nothing to do with the rest of the world, and when the UN creates a 'World [insert random words here] Day', people around the world rarely celebrate it en masse. A few people here and there may observe it, but it never becomes a national holiday for all nations globally. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, never heard of February 21 Language Day. But I do know that the UN has packed the calendar full of celebratory days that rarely recieves any kind of celebration outside the narrow field of specialists that are connected to the particular celebration on each individual day and of course some folks at the UN who decided what to celebrate. This being said with the disclaimer that I actually do think that the UN does more good than harm. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Migrating to New France

That's a lot of territory...

Why weren't the French as eager as the British to migrate to the New World? Were peasants and generally poorer Frenchman allowed to leave the country to move to other colonies? And if so, why didn't more of them move there? Help would be great! :) 64.229.180.189 (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure "the French" were not as eager? French colonial empire mentions that French colonists emphasized the fur trade over agricultural settlements, though I'm sure that's only one factor of many. The British captured most of the French colonies at the beginning of the 1800s. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the French were not as eager. At the time of the French and Indian War, the French population of New France was about 70,000 while British North America had a population of over 1 million (and concentrated in a smaller area). 75.41.110.200 (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)