Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

April 25

Secretary-General of the United Nations

What is his daily schedule? What is it that he usually does each day as a part of his job? —Bzweebl— ^talk 04:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

His schedule for the current day only is shown here (it doesn't look like there is a way to view past or future schedules). Much of his time is spent travelling, see here. You can click the links on that page to see a detailed rundown of what he did on each trip. --Viennese Waltz 07:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Cool! —Bzweebl— ^talk 02:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Did a mischievous golfer destroyed the Benin Air Force?

I just found much source on the internet and some books, but I would like to see if there are some more specific sources about this event.--58.251.146.129 (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's made up. See our article on Benin Armed Forces for current resources. --Dweller (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I just felt strange about that there is no official reports on this accident, but now I see. Plus, does anyone know the origin of this joke?--58.251.146.129 (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Japanese prime ministers

What are the reasons why Japanese prime ministers get unpopular so quickly? Since Junichiro Koizumi, there has not been one Japanese prime minister who lasted more than one-and-a-half years in office. Shinzo Abe and Yasuo Fukuda followed, then resigned for different reasons. Then came Taro Aso, Japan's only Catholic Prime Minister, whose long-time ruling party the LDP was defeated by Yukio Hatoyama's DPJ, but he too resigned after just eight months because he said he broke some promises involving a American military base. He was replaced by Naoto Kan who oversaw Japan's rebuilding after the 2011 earthquake, but eventually he became unpopular and resigned. The current prime minister, Yoshihiko Noda, seems to be quite unpopular will probably be on his way out soon. But anyway, why have they become so unpopular lately? I can think of many governments that had financial problems but didn't burn through many leaders in such a short amount of time, but why Japan? Of course, there was the removal from office of Italian, Spanish and Greek Prime Ministers recently, but their Prime Ministers don't seem to be unpopular (yet), and those events have only occurred within the last year or so, this has been going on in Japan for six years. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Does Politics of Japan help answer your question? --Jayron32 12:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There have been controversies over the privatisation of Japan Post (which is a massively controversial issue), over nuclear power following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, over the war in Afghanistan[1]; the Japanese economy hasn't been in a good condition for 20 years, with an end to the job-to-life culture and layoffs at even the most established companies, plus deflation, the recent recession (Japanese economy#Current economic issues) and a sense that Japan is no longer a world leader with the rise of China and India. But a lot of it is down to circumstances and the lack of charismatic leaders with popular appeal - a long sequence of grey men in grey suits with no particular idea of how to sort Japan's problems. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Beyond the other answers, you're hardly the first person to notice this, so a quick search for 'japan prime minister short' (or something similar) will find plenty of discussions, e.g. [2] [3] [4] [5] and indirectly [6] Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Definition of theft

I have a question regarding a potential situation that came to mind. I'm not seeking legal advice, I'm simply curious.

If I ordered something online, say an iPod classic 30GB, but they sent me a 60GB model by accident, is it legally theft if I keep it if they don't ask for it back? If the situation was slightly different, and they DID ask for it back, would it be theft if I refused? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.202.154.192 (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

When an error is made, it is generally expected that the error be corrected. There are many examples of this, say a person receiving $10,000 on a check that should have only been paid $100 (say, if the bank misreads $100.00 as $10000), and in those cases, the person is legally obligated to return the money. You can do find lots of examples from google where that has been the case, i found two examples in about 10 seconds: [7] and [8] That doesn't mean that a person wouldn't "get away" with keeping the more expensive product, but the company in question would be within its legal rights to ask for, and receive, it back. Not getting caught is not the same thing as not breaking the law. --Jayron32 14:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This does get into an interesting moral or ethical area. It's kind of the flip side of "let the buyer beware". Moral absolutists (maybe "Abe Lincolnists") would probably say there's no moral difference between "stealing" a penny vs. "stealing" 10,000 dollars. However, practicality intervenes. If you're supposed to get 25 cents in change at your local McDonald's and they give you 35 cents instead, and you discover it when you get home, driving back to the store to give them 10 cents is a waste of gasoline, and you're liable to get incredulous looks. But if they gave you a 10 dollar bill instead of a 1, the clerk will probably be grateful, as they may well be docked for any shortage in the till. If the bank gives you 100 dollars and 10 cents, the cost of them doing the adjustment might exceed that 10 cents. However, if they give you 10,000 dollars instead of 100 dollars, and you tell them about it, you'll probably be a hero, get your mug on the nightly news, and maybe even get a reward for your honesty, such as a free toaster. In all cases, though, if someone asks for it back, you should return it without hesitation. In the OP's case, it's kind of borderline. Since they basically "gave" it to you, you could keep your mouth shut until or if they notice it. However, someone might get fired over a mistake like that. So the optimal course of action probably would be to contact them and ask them what they want you to do. Given the cost of shipping (which they should have to bear), they might just tell you to keep it. Communication is good. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

My dad pointed out a mistake his bank had made in his favour (I'm not sure how large) and got a box of their branded pens as a thank-you gift - whenever you picked up a pen in his house for the next few years, it always had that bank's logo on it! Probably quite good advertising for the bank... --Tango (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The short answer is, if they ask for it back you will have to return it. If they don't ask for it back, then really it's up to your conscience! It's possible you could get into trouble for not reporting it, but I've never heard of something like that happening unless you failed to give it back when asked. --Tango (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

To answer the question rather than talk about the moral issue, in most jurisdictions theft must be an act of commission, rather than omission, so they likely could not have you charged with theft and arrested. However, they could sue in civil court, and recover the item, or the value of the item, in that manner. As a practicality, this would only be done with valuable items. If you paid by credit card, however, they might very well just charge you for the more expensive item, without your permission to do so. StuRat (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't answer the original question. That would be legal advice. Broba (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Even forgetting that, no one answer is actually possible, because the laws vary from place to place. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A practical concern, if you will: if you purchased this from Apple, you're going to have to connect to them somehow with your new toy (to register it, to activate iTunes, etc., they're much more "into" your stuff than many other tech firms). At that point, they're going to "know" what you've got and they could easily compare what you've got with what you paid for. Whether they'd bother doing that is an open question. Matt Deres (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(the following is not legal advice - its advice to myself) If this happened to me, to keep a clear conscience, I would simply email them and advise them of the discrepency, ask if they want to correct it, offer my terms of making good (at no cost to me). I would also limit them to 10 working days to reply; after which time, if they havent I will advise them I will assume they do not want the thing back, and then get on with my life. Benyoch^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

At this point I'm reminded of this one: A guy sends a note to the IRS, saying, "I under-reported my income, and I can't sleep at night. Enclosed find check for $500, and if I still can't sleep, I'll send you the balance." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Canada South Asian Chinese election politics vs USA African Americans and hispanics

Ever since the 2012 US Presidential election is coming up, television networks like AlJazeera have been talking about how African-Americans and Hispanics have bigger role in US politics because people have claim especially political analysts that these two largest non-white groups tend to vote Democrats more than vote Republicans because of their immigration and crime policy. Even there books dealing with Hispanics and African Americans having a voice in the election. So, I want to about how South Asians and Chinese. So far, I know that they are the largest non-white groups in Canada(South Asians first and Chinese second in population). How come these two groups are never mentioned in the media when it comes to Canadian general election and never get that tag that they vote Liberal or NDP more than they vote for Conservative? Is there any books about these two groups having voice in Canadian general elections? Is there a website where it shows tables, graphs and figures about South Asians and Chinese and their views on different issues like Quebec, immigration, economy and social issues during the Canadian general elections 2011? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.98 (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I would suppose it's not that it isn't interesting, but the relative proportion is smaller than hispanics in the US, so they aren't as as able to 'swing' an election even if there was a noticeable voting bloc. Mingmingla (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly what you're looking for, but Jacques Parizeau blamed the outcome of the 1995 Quebec referendum on "the ethnic vote". Adam Bishop (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, isn't the Canadian immigration policy more favorable to immigrants ? If so, they would have less reason to vote for or against a party, based on that. Other issues would seem more important, like the economy. StuRat (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Most Hispanics look pretty white to me. HiLo48 (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how they look to you; in North America they are often treated as another race (or at least ethnic group). It doesn't matter whether or not there is even such a thing as race, it just is. Mingmingla (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

But how do you tell the difference? HiLo48 (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, as often or not, you can't. Mingmingla (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you try reading our article on the topic, as well as Black Hispanic and Latino Americans, which is well-populated and well-referenced, and Asian Hispanic and Latino Americans, which sadly isn't so much. But it should be reasonably apparent that, say, Franklin Chang-Diaz and Alex Rodriguez cannot readily be classed as 'just European'. As far as I (a Brit) can tell, the controlling factor for being Hispanic is identifying oneself with one's heritage in a Spanish-speaking culture (or possibly Lusophone - but probably not). AlexTiefling (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Traditionally, recent immigrant groups in Canada voted largely for the Liberal party. This was because the Liberal party was in power during the second half of the 1960s and 1970s under Lester B. Pearson and Pierre Elliott Trudeau when immigration policy changed to allow more non-European immigrants. Studies show (sorry, I don't have time to look them up) that these groups were grateful to that government and party for allowing them to become citizens. Similarly, they were largely opposed to Quebec separatism, out of a sense of loyalty to the federal government which issued immigration visas (hence Jacques Parizeau's infamous remarks, mentioned above). This seems to have changed in recent years; the Conservatives did not significantly change immigration policies when they were in power under Brian Mulroney in the 1980s, and the current Stephen Harper party and government has courted them openly, with some success. All parties now have members representing all major communities in Canada. It is the same in Quebec, where both camps in the sovereignty debates have supporters coming from various immigrant communities. There is thus no clear "Chinese" or "Indian" or "Arabic" or whatever vote in Canada anymore, and political scientists look to other factors to explain current electoral behaviour. --Xuxl (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the longest book written that is NOT a novel?

Hello, I was trying to look for the longest books written (in English or not) that were not novels, but all I can find are lists for the longest novels ever written. So I was wondering if anyone can think of the longest written works that are not novels. Sorry if you think this is the wrong desk to ask this, I was thinking I could also ask this in the Language or even the Entertainment desks, but I concluded the type of books I would like to find were more akin to the humanities. Thanks in advance. --Kreachure (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica? Or maybe there's a bigger encyclopaedia somewhere? HiLo48 (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana is several times longer than the Britannica. Kreachure (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) By "book", do you exclude official reports such as the one into the 9/11 attacks or the report of the Warren Commission into JFK's assassination? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Great suggestions, and good question. I guess they would count, as long as each is considered a distinct, clearly delimited, single written work of its own (especially so that an unambiguous word count may be possible). Kreachure (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Unabridged dictionaries are quite large. RudolfRed (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Our Mahabharata page says it is "the longest Sanskrit epic", at about 1.8 million words. But I'd bet there are longer "distinct, clearly delimited, single written works". Pfly (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, but the Mahabharata is dwarfed by some encyclopedias. Some large ones are listed at Wikipedia:Size comparisons#Comparison of encyclopedias. Siku Quanshu is listed at 800 million Chinese characters; the Yongle Encyclopedia at 370 million characters. Pfly (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) You're right, it turns out reference works like encyclopedias are some of the longest types of works out there. Now that we know this, I would like to know of works outside of reference works, like the Mahabharata. If anything because, unlike the Mahabharata, an encyclopedia is not something that is intended to be read from beginning to end as a whole. :) Kreachure (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Giacomo Casanova's autobiography is a single, although unfinished, work, and in its full form runs to twelve generous volumes. There are a number of examples of outsider art literature which are extremely long, too. But I'm sure even longer examples can be found... AlexTiefling (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The History of the Second World War published by HMSO appears (by my count) to run to over 90 volumes. However, our article says; "The volumes were written to be read individually, rather than as a whole series." Alansplodge (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.248.126 (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't every autobiography necessarily unfinished? —Tamfang (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

In a trivial sense, yes. But in Casanova's case, he left a bunch of notes about things he wanted to write about, but hadn't got around to (including, apparently, a few same-sex encounters that were potentially more spicy than the ones he did mention). AlexTiefling (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a fairly random example of a 40-volume encyclopedia on one specific topic. "Reclaiming history: Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies produces 40-volume work on Muslim women scholars and prayer leaders" BrainyBabe (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Simon Winchester in his Krakatoa: The Day the World Exploded ISBN 0-141-00517-3 claims Raden Ngabahi Rangga Warsita wrote a book called the Book of Kings (apparently one we don't have an article about), which ran to about six million words. Winchester says it was written in a version of Bahasa called Court Javanese. Zoonoses (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous music critics

I'm researching Henry Cope (H. C.) Colles, who was the chief music critic of The Times from 1911 to his death in 1943, and also edited the 3rd and 4th editions of Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, among many other activities. My primary source is the article on Colles in the 5th edition of Grove, written by his successor Eric Blom. Blom writes about Colles's time at The Times:

• ... and although his work was necessarily anonymous, readers learnt not only to recognise it, but also to admire it for its admirable qualities of comprehensive taste, sure and fair judgment, and, above all, perhaps, for an unfailing tact and humanity that tempered even his severest strictures.

The "necessarily anonymous" bit intrigues me. Why was it necessary to remain anonymous? I'm sure modern-day music critics, and journalists of all kinds, all have their bylines, and this is far from being a recent thing. I see that "An exception is the British weekly The Economist, which publishes nearly all material anonymously". Was this also the case at The Times? When did it change?

Also, how would the casual reader recognise the pen of Colles, unless they had already been exposed to his other (nonymous) writings. Maybe the readers of The Times in those days were all exceedingly erudite and moved in the most educated of circles, musicologically speaking, I don't know, but it all sounds a bit closed-shop high-brow to me. (Mind you, that's from back in the day when The Times was still a broadsheet. With tabloids - and Rupert Murdoch - one never really knows, does one. :)

Can anyone enlighten me about this? Thanks. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, Times reviewers' work was anonymous into the 1970s. This obit of a fellow who became editor of the TLS in 1974, for instance, says that "as editor, Mr. Gross broke with longstanding tradition and began attaching bylines to reviews, which had been anonymous." Deor (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Blom's words say no more than that readers recognized Colles's work (presumably in distinction to the work of other authors of Times music reviews), not that they knew the name of the man responsible for that work. Deor (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. But Blom seems to be going beyond mere recognition, and into admiration. How would readers express their admiration for, or even just refer to, that particularly admired writer whose name they didn't know? How would this sentence end: Oh, I'm looking forward to the review of last night's concert, and I really hope it's written by [....]. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

". . . that guy I like"? Deor (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Or "...the good reviewer"? The Beano and the Dandy don't let their artists have bylines, and until relatively recently I didn't have any way to find out who drew what (the internet is great). But, as a child, I certainly recognised certain artists by their work, and sought out other strips by them, and was cheered when they drew another strip, and was displeased when someone else drew one of their regular strips, all without knowing their name. For example, I would happily note that a strip in the Dandy at the dentist's was drawn by the same person who regularly drew Calamity James in the Beano, and could tell people that without knowing who the artist was. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That visual analogy works well. The styles of different cartoonists are very distinctive and are instantly apparent, before you've even got to focussing on what the cartoon's about. Writers have styles that are just as distinctive in their way as those of visual artists, but they can't generally display their style in just two or three words. Reading is a sequential activity, and you have to read some way into the text before you have any real sense of the style. Still, well before the end of the piece it would be apparent that it's by "that writer I like" or "some other writer". Thanks for the replies. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

April 26

Winning the Presidency with only a quarter of the popular vote!

Is it true that it's possible to obtain a majority in the Electoral College with only about a quarter of the popular vote, by winning in the states where your vote counts the absolute most? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 02:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're asking about the Electoral_College_(United_States), then yes I think that could happen, depending on voter turnout. If you had low turnout in high-count states like California and Texas and won 50.1% of the popular vote there, and high turnout in smaller count states like North Dakota and only won a small percent of popular vote, then you could end up with a small percentage of the total popular vote and win the electoral college. You would need to do the math on all the state voter numbers, but it seems possible if unlikely. RudolfRed (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of theoretical scenarios which are much more extreme. Members of the Electoral College (United States) are not bound by law to vote for a specific candidate so you can get 100% in the Electoral College with 0% in the popular vote. There could be unpledged electors who never pledged to vote for a specific candidate. There could be pledged electors who become faithless electors. If all electors are pledged and follow it faithfully then one candidate could theoretically win large states where only one voter actually votes, while another candidate gets 100% in other states where everybody votes. There could be many candidates splitting the votes so all candidates get a small percentage of the popular vote. The population of states could change dramatically from the latest census used to determine the number of electors for each state. Some states could change the way they appoint electors so it's not based on a popular vote in the state. And so on. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

According to the article, electors for some states are bound to specific vote and the vote will be voided if the elector votes for someone else. The article says Michigan does this, and implies there are others but doesn't name them. RudolfRed (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

But according to the article and faithless elector the law punishing people for voting improperly have never been tested in court. It doesn't comment on the specifics of invalidating the vote but I presume this is similarly untested since it sounds like the only thing tested is that electors can be required to take pledges and rejected if they refuse. Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you win 50%+1 votes in the correct states to give you 50%+1 electoral college votes, and 0% of the vote in every other state, you win the presidency. As a practical matter, that will never happen, but there have been cases where someone has lost the popular vote, and still won the presidency in the electoral college. Stictly speaking, to get the 270 votes you need, you'd only need to win the states of California (55), Texas (38), Florida (29), New York (29), Illinois (20), Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (18), Michigan (16), Georgia (16), North Carolina (15), and New Jersey (14) = exactly 270 votes. That means winning just 11 states (out of 50) is needed to win the Presidency. These 11 states represent a population of about 177 million, or 56.5% of the country's population. Since smaller states have a larger representation in the Electoral College, if you won the 40 smallest states, you would have a population of about 45% of the country represented for those same 270 Electoral votes, assuming you won the bare minimum of those 40 states, and literally zero votes in the other 11 (we're assuming DC counts as a state for presidential election purposes here), you would have less than 25% of the popular vote. As noted, this is impossible, from a practical point of view. However, people have won the electoral college when losing the popular vote, I can think of a few off the top of my head: the United States presidential election, 1876 was awarded to Rutherford B. Hayes by the courts, Samuel Tilden won the national popular vote, but there were several states whose results were too close to call; a special judicial commission awarded those electoral college votes to Hayes, giving him the absolte bare minimum to win the electoral college. In the United States presidential election, 2000, Al Gore had a plurality (but not an absolute majority) of the popular vote, while George W. Bush came in second in the popular vote. As in 1876, the results of a closely contested state (Florida) was disputed and eventual ended up getting decided by the Supreme Court, who awarded the state to Bush. In general, however, the electoral college tends to be a lot more lopsided than the popular vote; in most elections the margin of victory in the electoral college is much greater than the popular vote, because of the "winner take all" nature of most states (except Maine and Nebraska) in the electoral college. For example, in the United States presidential election, 1960, Kennedy defeated Nixon by the tiniest margin in the popular vote (just over 100,000 votes, or 0.2%) but won the electoral college vote handily (by a 74 vote margin). Likewise, in the famous "Reagan Landslide" election of United States presidential election, 1984, Reagan won 58% of the popular vote, but won an astounding 525/538 (97.5%) of the electoral college. --Jayron32 03:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing that says that the president has to receive any popular votes. Let's say there's a deadlocked election, 269-269, except one of the electors is faithless and votes for someone else. The election is carried into the House of Representatives, and that someone else is on the ballot, since the House of Representatives chooses from among the top three electoral vote getters. Who knows what might happen?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible. Such dark horse candidates have won their party conventions under similar circumstances (James Knox Polk and Warren G. Harding for example). There was some question in 1992 before Ross Perot let his crazy out that, if he took too many electoral college votes from the other candidates, that no candidate would get the needed 270 votes. Thankfully, Perot went a bit nuts, and ended up mortally wounding his election chances and didn't end up winning any electoral college votes, but there was serious contention that, in 1992, it may have been thrown to the House for a vote. However, it is unlikely to the point of impossibility that a "dark horse" would end up winning the House election. Voting would likely run on strict party lines, and there are an odd number of Representatives, so someone would win, and it would be whatever party had the Majority in the House. --Jayron32 13:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

1896 and Bryan ... Not as easy as all that. If you read the 12th Amendment, the House votes by state, each state casting one vote no matter what the size of the delegation, and you need a majority of all the states to win. Easy to conceive a scenario where several states are deadlocked 1-1 or 2-2 preventing either side from getting to 26, and that third candidate starts to look attractive ...--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding winning without a majority of popular votes — Bill Clinton was several million votes short of a majority both in 1992 and 1996, but he easily won the Electoral College. It's winning without a plurality of the popular vote that's really hard. Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

In the first presidential election with a significant popular vote, 1824, John Quincy Adams with 30.9% of the vote defeated Andrew Jackson, who won 41.3%, and two others. None of the four candidates won a majority of Electors, so the choice was made by the House of Representatives (one vote per state). In 1860, Abraham Lincoln won the Electoral College with 39.8% of the vote against three others, and in 1912, Woodrow Wilson with 41.8% unseated President William Howard Taft (23.1%), also defeating former President Theodore Roosevelt (27.4%), the Socialist leader Eugene V. Debs (6%) and several others. Only four Democrats have won more than 51% of a presidential popular vote: Jackson (1828 & 1832), Franklin D. Roosevelt (1932–44), Lyndon B. Johnson (1964) and Barack Obama (2008). Four others have won more than 50% but less than 51%: Martin Van Buren (1836), Franklin Pierce (1852), Samuel Tilden (1876, narrowly losing the Electoral College to Rutherford B. Hayes) and Jimmy Carter (1976). All the other Democratic candidates since 1824, successful and unsuccessful, won less than 50% of the popular vote. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What happens if Obama quits the election ?

Who would the Democrats field in his place, or would there be no Democratic candidate ? Has this type of thing happened before ? StuRat (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If he quits before the convention, the delegates will have to vote for someone else. See LBJ#1968_presidential_election RudolfRed (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A more interesting situation (though incredibly unlikely) is a presidential candidate dropping out (or dying or otherwise being incapacitated) after winning the popular election but before being inaugurated. I wonder whether the incumbent vice president would be sworn in on January 20, or if legal acrobats may arrange for the winning VP candidate to inaugurated. I don't think this has happened before, so it would certainly pose an interesting problem for those who would have to sort it out. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Why the outgoing VP rather than the new one? To step on all the bases, the VP-elect could be sworn in as VP and then sworn in again as President. —Tamfang (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There are different procedures for what happens depending on when he quits. If he quits before the Democratic National Convention, the convention will just nominate someone else. (strictly speaking, the convention isn't bound by the primaries, and prior to the 20th century, many states didn't have primaries; the nominees were picked in "smoke filled rooms" at the convention itself). If he were to quit after the convention, but before the general election, then it would likely fall to his running mate, who would then select another running mate. I'm not sure anyone has quit that late in the process, but there have been some Presidents who made a late decision not to run for re-election (famously LBJ in 1968, who withdrew from the election in March, 1968). There was also the curious case of Daniel Webster in 1852, who died so close to the election that he remained on the official ballot in several states, and as a corpse managed to get something like 7000 votes. --Jayron32 03:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If something happened between the time of the public election and the meeting of the Electoral College, presumably the Electors would go with someone else. If something happened after the Electoral College and before inauguration day, the Supreme Court might need to step in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Tangentally related, see United States presidential election, 1872 and Horace Greeley. Greeley died at the exact wrong time, after the general election but before the meeting of the electoral college. As a result, his electors had no guidance in how to vote, so they voted for an array of candidates from Greeley's party. It was moot anyways, as Grant won in a landslide. But had the election gone the other way, it would have created quite a mess. --Jayron32 04:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

People I've talked to about that scenario seem to feel that, were it to happen today, nothing very interesting would happen. The electors would duly vote for the candidate to whom they're pledged, notwithstanding that person's metabolically challenged status. He would be duly elected, found immediately unable to discharge the duties of his office, and the newly minted veep would take over. But who really knows. Depends on how 538 electors, the House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court respond to the unexpected. --Trovatore (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest, what would happen nowadays if one of the main candidates died or dropped out in similar circumstances to Webster, just before the election and without enough time for the ballots to be altered - would the election be postponed, would votes for that candidate be ignored, or would they still be counted, with the corresponding Electors presumably voting for their Vice Presidential candidate (and picking somebody else for Vice President)? I'm also wondering about the same situation in a UK general election - if a candidate dies shortly before or during an election, the election in their constituency is postponed for 28 days, which would make things very complicated if it happened in, say, the constituency of the leader of the party winning the overall election, or in the incumbent Speaker's seat. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The Democratic National Committee has the power to fill vacancies on the ticket; this has happened once in 1972, when vice presidential candidate Alan Eagleson was dumped from the ticket when it was revealed he had been treated for depression. It came reasonably close to happening in 1952 to the Republicans; had Nixon resigned rather than delivering the Checkers speech, the RNC would have filled the vacancy. If it happened, say, on the evening before election day with no way for the national committee to convene in time, remember, you are voting for electors, all of whom are party loyalists these days, they would almost certainly do as the national committee directed, though I'm sure there would be huge media speculation about rogue electors.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Eagleton, not Alan Eagleson, who would have been a poor VP candidate for several other reasons. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

And the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides answers to some of these conundrums.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. The situation has never happened, but the 20th Amendment is so detailed that there really isn't much of any grey area. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd be fairly confident the flexible constitutional provisions of the UK could handle anything like that. If it is indeed the leader of the largest party's constituency, the Queen (or King) would have to take a view on it. Probably, the incumbent PM would remain PM until the prospective leader had successfully defended his or her seat; if unsuccessful, the Queen would simply pick someone else (although picking is not necessarily an easy process, it was not uncommon in the past), with the potential for a leadership election to prompt another change in PM. With regard to speakers, the speaker would simply remain an MP (and indeed speaker) until (s)he actually lost, at which point a vote would be scheduled; in the interim, the Speaker's deputies would perform all practical roles such as chairing debates. As I understand it, anyway. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 11:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That's what is nice about the flexibility inherent in the Westminster system. In the U.S. everything is rigidly tied to certain dates and numbers; the Constitutional question about what happens if something untowards happens and a date gets missed is entirely unanswered. --Jayron32 12:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You say that after the Prime Ministerial succession in the UK of 1963?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What point about 1963 are you referring to? The fact it took 5 days, the fact that the Conservatives' selection procedure (which essentially dictated the "advice" given to the Queen) has been accused of bias, or something else? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 12:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

1963 was a rough year for the British: death of the Opposition leader, Profumo sex scandal, the messy way that the Macmillan to Douglas-Home transition worked, with Douglas-Home having to resign from Lords to take the PM job. --Jayron32 12:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I refer to the messy way in which Home was picked.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The sitting Vice President in 1912, James S. Sherman (brother of the General who said he wouldn't serve if elected), renominated by the Republican National Convention, died on October 30, too late to change many ballots. The Republican National Committee nominated Nicholas Murray Butler to run in Sherman's place with the incumbent President William Howard Taft. Taft, however, carried only Utah and Vermont; Taft's eight electors voted for Butler, as Horace Greeley's electors had voted in 1872 for B. Gratz Brown and others. See United States presidential election, 1912. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012

Why hasn't Ron Paul's current delegate count been up dated? He has won 14 Delegates in Iowa, 20 in Minnesota and Nevada as of April 26,2012 See Here: http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2012/04/ron_paul_actually_won_minnesotas_gop_presidential_primary_it_turns_out.php

and Here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#47151825 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Randleman (talk • contribs) 17:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If you see an error on Wikipedia, Be Bold and fix it. RudolfRed (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

SS Ottowa or Ottawa?

Ottawa is the most common spelling. There seem to be two ships of the same name though. SS_Germanic_(1875)#Ottawa and Passengers_of_the_RMS_Titanic#Passenger_list. The latter is listed as a ship that recovered bodies and there is a hidden note not to change the spelling that cites a very old document with the Ottowa spelling. Were they two different ships? I am going to look for more discussion on it in WP, but I was just wondering if anyone is familiar with it. I can't see anything about it on the talk pages.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like "Ottowa" is a misspelling. These two places[9][10] refer to an SS Ottawa recovering a body from the Titanic. The hidden note is unreliable and does not even establish a connection to the disaster, only that three people traveled on the "Ottowa" between 1902 and 1906. It also doesn't appear to be the renamed Germanic, since its article states it was sold to the Turkish government in 1910 and used to ferry troops to Yemen. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I may wikilink to the article on the correct ship. It also seems strange that that ship was not named Ottawa on April 15, 1912 though."..leaving Liverpool for the last time on 15 May 1911, carrying the name Gul Djemal..."--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done(for now)

I have found no less than four ships that could possibly be the one. The one spelled Ottowa may be a mispelling, but I am going to leave it for now as the recovery ship. It is the only one that has dates that work.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

American schools

To what extent have American school systems informed American students about the role of U.S companies in the holocaust? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.23.10 (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you could research the subject and improve the article here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on my experience of history teaching in U.S. school systems, I would say that the subject is seldom addressed. It certainly isn't mentioned in the leading textbooks. Marco polo (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

So, U.S. companies were sending Jews to the death camps? I thought Hitler was the one doing that. Silly me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The OP made no such assertion, but I do wonder just what they are referring to. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

One example is that IBM sold them computers used to track Jew's whereabouts, etc. StuRat (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody sold anybody computers until 1951, when the holocaust was well over. And IBM began selling them in 1952. IBM did sell M1 carbine rifles. HiLo48 (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Tabulating equipment", then, if you prefer, although I consider those to be mechanical computers, versus the current electronic computers. StuRat (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fair. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that US schools wouldn't spend much time on the relatively minor role some US companies played. But, to put this in perspective, compare this to Japan, which glosses right over WW2 entirely, and Turkey, where any mention of the Armenian Genocide can get you tossed in jail. StuRat (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Where's your evidence that Japan glosses over WW2 entirely? According to Japanese history textbook controversies,"Despite the efforts of the nationalist textbook reformers, by the late 1990s the most common Japanese schoolbooks contained references to, for instance, the Nanking Massacre, Unit 731, and the comfort women of World War II,[2] all historical issues which have faced challenges from ultranationalists in the past.[3] The most recent of the controversial textbooks, the New History Textbook, published in 2000, was shunned by 'nearly all of Japan's school districts'." Even ultra-nationalists are not proposing to pretend that WWII never happened. Your claim that "any mention of the Armenian Genocide can get you tossed in jail" is also highly exaggerated, considering that [prosecutions under [Article 301]] are relatively rare, and most of the high-profile ones have resulted in acquittals. --140.180.51.64 (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Japan has made some recent progress, but, according to Japanese_history_textbook_controversies#New_History_Textbook, that text which completely whitewashes Japan's role in WW2 was approved, by the Ministry of Education there, in 2001, and is still used in a few schools. So, there is still a bit of a problem there, if such a book can get official government approval and be used at all. As for Turkey, officially denying the genocide and having a law against discussing it is problem enough, even if they don't toss many in jail as a result. StuRat (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Completely whitewashing Japan's role in WW2" is a far cry from glossing over WW2 entirely, especially since said textbook is used in a tiny fraction of Japanese schools. Officially denying the genocide and throwing a handful of people in jail, while despicable, is a far cry from what you were saying--that "any mention of the Armenian Genocide can get you tossed in jail". --140.180.0.231 (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"Whitewashing" and "glossing over" seem the same, to me. And my statement about Turkey is correct (it would have been incorrect if I said "will" instead of "can"). StuRat (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Which American schools? Grade school? High school? Colleges? The first two likely never mention it since there's just too much other info about the war to pack into a semester. The last may mention it in passing unless the course is specific to the holocaust or business ethics. Dismas|^(talk) 04:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I did look at some High School textbooks, and some of them mentioned large German corporations such as IG Farbin aiding the Nazis, or supporting their rise to power, but none of them mention GM, IBM or Ford's support of the Nazis. All of them mention the important role Ford and GM played in manufacturing equipment for the U.S army.

I've read that IBM equipment was used to track the victims of the holocaust. Would that qualify? See IBM and the Holocaust, [11] . Less directly, there has been much published about US corporations aiding Hitler. See IG Farben, Wall Street and the rise of Hitler. See also Yahoo Answers: [12]. A Google search provides sources stating that Hitler was aided by several major US companies and wealthy families. I doubt that anything relating to this is included in standard high school history textbooks, but some college courses may cover the material. Edison (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

If these companies did play a significant role, why is this not included in textbooks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Two reasons that I can think of, A) The companies likely didn't know that they were helping the holocaust. They likely were just happy to have a lucrative government contract and didn't know until after the parts/services were already sold just what they had a hand in. So why point it out and unnecessarily brand them criminals? B) For a grade school or high school class, the teachers and text book writers have priorities about what they are going to teach in a given semester. I don't know about other grade/high schools but mine was large and didn't have a course specifically on the war. So, the teachers have maybe a week or two to cover the entire war. Even if the course is just 1900 to the present, that's still a lot of material to cover considering there's a whole other world war plus one or two other wars to cover. Companies selling stuff to the Nazis (which wasn't vilified until long after they came to power) isn't the biggest part of the story. Dismas|^(talk) 15:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Did they play a significant role? You're kind of assuming that piece, which seems to be the most critical. Something like our WP:UNDUE policy might be a useful analogy. There also were significant restrictions on trade with Germany during WW2 under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The treasury secretary imposed restrictions not just on obvious countries, but those in occupied countries as well. (Kern Alexander, Economic sanctions: law and public policy, 0230525555, p 94).

Even before that the Neutrality Act prohibited certain American assistance to England, France, and Germany, although this was later modified (NYT, Hulen, November 5, 1939). Shadowjams (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This reminds me of another issue I heard about in Canada years ago. I was told that maps in American schools end at the Canadian border. They just show white, no cities, mountains, etc. Is there any truth that this was the case, or still is? Also you may wish to find a book called Other Losses, it documents atrocities performed by the allies in WWII.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Other Losses - have you read the critisism section before mentioning it? It is not widely accepted. Rmhermen (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Some do, some don't. I remember watching TV weather forecasts and watching a weather system disappear when it crossed the border into the great white north. This was particularly problematic, since I was in upstate New York, at the time, which gets it's weather from Southern Ontario. StuRat (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

We also round pi down to 3 and teach creationism exclusively! Also, I'm pretty sure the Earth is in the middle of our solar system... our very very flat solar system. Shadowjams (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, this is getting far from the original question :-) See Indiana Pi Bill. Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I was told by a Canadian friend that the War of 1812 was fought by the US to conquer Canada. Everybody has their axe to grind. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I used to use 22/7 because my calculator didn't have a pi button. According to the big bang theory I am actually at the center of the universe, and the solar system isn't quite flat because Uranus' orbit is off by a few degrees.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Saint Agostina Petrantoni

I see that there's no entry for Saint Agostina Petrantoni in Wikipedia. Is there a reason why? Given that wikipedia's entries on saints are pretty thorough, I thought I should point this out. For information on her, please see http://saints.sqpn.com/saint-agostina-petrantoni/

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.24.176 (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Saints#Roman Catholicism says: One Roman Catholic website states that "There are over 10,000 named saints and beatified people from history, the Roman Martyrology and Orthodox sources, but no definitive head count".

Wikipedia is big but we don't have 10,000 biographies of saints. She is spelled Pietrantoni in Wikipedia and is one of many red links in these lists: Chronological list of saints and blesseds in the 19th century, List of saints canonized by Pope John Paul II, List of canonizations#Pontificate of Pope John Paul II. I don't know whether she is considered more significant than the many other saints without biographies. See Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Your first article if you want to write an article. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

She has an article on the Italian Wikipedia: [13] The main source appears to be an encyclopedia of saints. Perhaps you can ask for a translation on the Language Desk. 184.147.123.69 (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I have created a brief article: Agostina Livia Pietrantoni. Please feel free to put some flesh on the bones or add an image. I must admit that I'd never heard of her until I read this. Alansplodge (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

April 27

Fantasy and sci-fi hottest spot

Which nations are arguably best for their Science fiction novels? and which nations are arguably best for their fantasy fiction novels? like Sweden, Denmark and Norway and England are arguably best for their mystery and crime fiction novels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.38 (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure any nations have special reputations for excellence in science fiction or fantasy novels. As you recognize, this is a very subjective question. There are many resources that compile "best" science fiction and fantasy works, often in short story form and often for a given year. Here on Wikipedia, see The Best of Science Fiction for an older example of such a work. A quick look at the authors from that work looks like they're mostly American and English. You could refer to resources such as those and make your own judgment based on the nationalities of the authors. Keep in mind that these anthologies will reflect the biases of their editors and compilers, however. Some may explicitly cover the "best of American science fiction" or something, but others may focus on a single country without saying so. The short version? Find fantasy or sci fi works that you like and look for a pattern in authors' nationalities. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The United States IMO for science fiction. It took widespread root the earliest there and spawned the greatest number of authors, good, bad or otherwise (thank you Hugo Gernsback). Plus the fact that Robert Heinlein was an American would skew the ranking just by itself, and another of the "Big Three" was too. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

As for fantasy, it's not as clear cut, but I'm inclined to go with England/Great Britain. They've got by far the two biggest names - J. R. R. Tolkien and J. K. Rowling - plus Terry Pratchett. Skimming quickly through Category:American fantasy writers, the US has L. Frank Baum, H. P. Lovecraft and Clark Ashton Smith. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Polygamy in US and Canada

I don't understand. Polygamy in USA and Canada is illegal but still some Canadians and Americans do polygamy without being getting caught by the law. Hollywood actors are the best examples I know for this situation and yet they get caught. What if a Muslim man wants to do polygamy because for health issues or economic issues and same thing other men and other women of other faiths? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.38 (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you might misunderstand what polygamy is. Why not read the article? Dismas|^(talk) 16:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It's only illegal if you are legally married to multiple people at once. One way around this is to have, at most, one official marriage, recorded by the state. You can then have as many unofficial marriages as you want, even having names legally changed, if desired.

For those actually committing bigamy (multiple official legal marriages at once), the governments remain reluctant to prosecute, since this results in breaking up families and putting many people "on the dole", who were self-supporting, and this looks very bad according to public opinion, especially with video of crying children being taken away from their parents. StuRat (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think the way to fix this is to completely decouple a civil marriage (the legal, official one) from a religious marriage. Indeed, it seems to me that the separation of church and state requires this. The legal one can be called a "civil partnership" or "civil union", if preferred, and the state can define the rules there. As for a religious marriage, the churches, temples, mosques, etc., can decide the rules there. If your church says you can marry multiple people, or even trees, that's fine, but it will have no legal meaning. StuRat (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The one legal argument against polygamy that makes some sense is that it can cause unbalanced numbers of unmarried women and men, leading to social problems. This happens in polygamous communities, and they handle it by having many of the excess single gender leave the community. This wouldn't work on a national level, though, unless you allow massive emigration of the excess gender. However, this problem exists whether marriages are official or unofficial, so it doesn't make sense to only put restrictions on official marriages. On the other hand, policing who everyone is sleeping with is both impossible and repugnant. So, what are we left with ? Perhaps just hope that polygamy doesn't become so widespread and one-way as to cause major disruptions. Based on it's currently lack of popularity in North America, I don't see it as much of a risk. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

All liberal states allow emigration, heh. North America, by the way, as a migration sink, has a chronic surplus of bachelors (or so I've been told). —Tamfang (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what "health issues" are ameliorated by polygamy. LANTZY^TALK 19:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the OP is referring to a man who wants to have biological children (or more biological children) but is unable to because his wife has low fertility (allegedly anyway as the assumption often seems to be made the wife is at fault without testing). While fertility treatments may help and using a surrogate mother and perhaps an egg donor is another option in the modern era, tradionally at least marrying another (generally younger) woman was another in some cultures. Nil Einne (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hollywood actors? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if "health issues" would largely be STDs. If you want multiple sexual partners and don't want to risk STDs, I suppose that polygamy with people who were previously virgins would prevent STDs as long as neither you nor your spouses are unfaithful. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No one in the US or Canada is a "true" polygamist, because it's against the law in every state. A guy with several "wives", still only has one "real" wife in the eyes of the law. The others are just cohabitants. And that's where trouble can arise - because in some states, some period of cohabitation (7 years, in standard lore), qualifies the cohabitant as a "common law wife". Once that happens, the guy is a bigamist and is in violation of the law. Whether the law goes after him or not depends on other circumstances. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope that's not legal advice, and even if it is, I find it extremely hard to believe that someone can separate from their spouse, not divorce for whatever reason, shack up with someone else and down the track find themself at risk of being tarred as a bigamist despite never having gone through any form of marriage ceremony with the new party or even purporting to be married to that party. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Shia Islam in Pakistan and India

Which ethnic groups mostly practice Jafari Shia and Ismaili Shia in Pakistan and which ethnic groups mostly practice Jafari Shia and Ismaili Shia in India? Which part of Pakistan has the most Shia Jafaris and which part of Pakistan has the most Shia Ismailis? Which part of India has the most Shia Jafaris and which part of India has the most Shia Ismailis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.38 (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen the articles Islam in India and Islam in Pakistan? If they don't directly answer your question, they will provide a launching point for you research. --Jayron32 03:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of at least the latter are from GujaratLihaas (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Messianic Secret

This is a question about the article "Messianic Secret," which I find possibly incomplete in a way that may or may not be deemed significant. From my point of view, as a student of literary theory and criticism, rather than of biblical studies, it is significant; but I refer to the judgment of others. My main object is not to have an answer sent to me (though that would be OK), but to have the question referred to those more knowledgeable on the subject, for possible expansion of the article.

The omission that I notice is this. The article identifies the "Messianic Secret" theory as originating in 1901, commanding considerable attention for the next quarter-century, but then by mid-century or a little later pretty much fallen out of favor among biblical scholars. This surprised me, because it was in "The Genesis of Secrecy" (1979) by Frank Kermode, a highly regarded literary critic, that I first encountered the idea. He speaks as if the theory has by that point become well established as a standard bit of knowledge--no longer a mere theory--and proceeds from there to apply it in the larger field of literary criticism.

My questions: 1) Is any of this worth mentioning in terms of the larger influence of Wrede's 1901 theory? 2) What is the current status of Kermode's book in literary circles? That is, has it too now become largely discredited or ignored?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.212.206 (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

If you make a link to the article ("Messianic Secret"), you increase the likelihood that someone will read the article, and you increase the likelihood that someone will try to answer your question. Also, here is a link to the article "Frank Kermode". Instructions on linking are at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, which you can reach with the shortcut WP:LINK.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

In debt – in credit?

If you owe money to a creditor, you're in debt. Do we have any analogous term for the state you're in when you're owed money – i.e. "in credit"?

Specifically, we can say that someone who is unlikely to pay off one's debts is "deeply in debt" – what can we say of someone who is unlikely to have their loans repaid?

Alfonse Stompanato (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The Language Desk would be a good place to ask this. One term used for something similar is "liquidity". That is, if you have cash on hand, you are "liquid", while if you have it loaned out to many others, you suffer from "illiquidity". StuRat (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Haven't heard "in credit", but budgets etc. can be said to be "in surplus", and the phrase "in the black" contrasts to "in the red"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

'In credit' is used widely here in the Uk to mean you have more a positive amount of money in your bank. If you have credit that is unlikely to be repaid you might call it Bad debt. ny156uk (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The next sucker beneficiary of my sure fire "investment opportunity". Clarityfiend (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"Solvent" or "in the money".John Z (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"To those who remain solvent, I say salut !" (I hope this doesn't precipitate a shower of puns.)StuRat (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the bible a novel?

79.148.233.179 (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

At a minimum, a novel is a long prose narrative. The Bible fails this test, as it is not a single narrative, and it includes non-narrative components. Marco polo (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The bible is a lot of things. Most of the bible is organized topically: Parts of it tell an historical narrative (much of the Pentateuch, as well as the Samuel-Kings-Chronicles section). The next section are books of "wisdom", that is Proverbs-Ecclesiastes. There the Psalter, which is basically a hymnal or song book. There's the books of the prophets, which are exhortations to the Nation of Israel to clean up their act or face God's wrath. In the New Testament, there's the four Gospels, followed by Acts (which is the second volume of Luke's gospel) which cover the narrative aspect. The Epistles are letters from Paul and a few other early church leaders to various churches instructing them on proper Christian life. The last book in the New Testament is Revelation, which is a dense symbolic book, the purpose of which is clouded but which seems to, among many scholars, be a narrative of the end times (see Eschatology). Some books, or sections of books, do have a novel-like quality in that they have a clear narrative. Other parts, however, are poetry, or songs, or letters, or any number of other sorts of writing. --Jayron32 19:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You may also wish to note that it was first recorded on paper long after most events happened, then re-written and edited by many over the centuries. It would be nice if a "Factual Bible" were written. It would be smaller, but at least would contain mostly factual entries.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Although there are arguments made that none of it is historical narrative, but rather a work of fiction to be used for educational purposes.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 20:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Fiction is a word that is a bit loaded. It may be best to say that parts of it are allegorical. That is, they espouse truth, but the truth comes in the lessons taught, not in the narrative itself, i.e. Jesus' parables. --Jayron32 21:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(after ec) I don't think you'll find any reliable source claiming that the Bible is a single work of fiction for any purpose whatever. Parts of it may well be as you describe - Job, in particular, and probably most if not all of Jonah and Daniel, along with chunks of Genesis. But (for example) when 2 Kings talks about Tiglath-Pileser III, or 1 Maccabees refers to Alexander the Great, it may not be a reliable historical document, but it is clearly intended as an historical account. (Contrast the book of Judith, which depicts an invasion, and a location, which as far as we can tell never existed.) And of course genres such as poetry (Psalms, Song of Songs) and wisdom literature (Proverbs, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiastes) are not susceptible to the distinction of truth and fiction. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "inspired by a true story" is the closest to the way a modern author would put it. StuRat (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Parts of the Bible which could be called rather "novelistic" include the Book of Esther, and (in the Apocrypha), the Book of Tobit... AnonMoos (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"I believe the entire Bible literally, even the parts that contradict the other parts." - Ned Flanders - StuRat (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bible has also perhaps the earliest example of detective fiction. Not just one but two tales.85.52.87.200 (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bible is an anthology, not a novel. It's also not very novel, as all or most of it is at least 19 centuries old. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually, this question is much more interesting than it looks at first glance (to me, at least), and none of the answers given so far really satisfy me that the bible is not a novel. In effect, the question is unanswerable without a clear definition of what exactly we mean by "novel", and such a definition will always be arbitrary and slightly fuzzy around the edges. Let's have a look at some of the criteria mentioned so far and see how they do when looking at books that unquestionably are novels:

• "author's intent" as a concept hasn't been used by literary theory for at least a hundred years now; I may be glossing over some minor outlying theories, but you'd have to go back all the way to Wilhelm Dilthey to find a theory of literature that was based on author's intent and that was widely accepted at the time it was posited. Basically, these days we don't care about author's intent because 1. we will never know for sure what exactly an author intended and 2. we don't care either way - we don't look at what an author wanted to accomplish, we can only look at what he actually did accomplish.
• The first point already takes care of passages that are "clearly intended as an historical account", but historical accounts are generally not a problem - each and every historical novel contains passages that read like history textbooks. The same goes for poems, letters etc - a great many novels incorporate pages upon pages of poetry.
• The above takes care of the bible's "anthology" aspect, but what about multiple authors? This is admittedly unusual, but not unheard of - just look at Luther Blissett (nom de plume).
• No single narrative and a rather long timeframe with various independent stories? Not unusual either - every family saga-type novel does that, plus the bible kind of has God as a recurring character and tells various tangentially related stories which all sort of illustrate God's character (not unllike Stephen Dedalus in Ulysses, come to think of it).

So what does that leave us with? In general, we define a novel as one of a set of narrative works that are part of a certain literary tradition and that share a certain ill-defined set of characteristics, but as long as the work in question is undeniably part of the same literary tradition it can generally get away with breaking any of the established conventions that seem to define a novel. The problem with the bible is that it is not part of that tradition because it was written several hundred years earlier - we might call it a proto-postmodernist novel, but that would be stretching the definition quite a bit. On the other hand, if the bible didn't already exist and was written today (I'm thinking of Borges' Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote here), we would almost certainly classify it as a postmodernist novel. We don't usually do that, but that is strictly a question of established tradition - there's really nothing inherent in the text itself that makes the bible unquestionably not a novel. Ferkelparade π 13:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Were the Neanderthal human?

79.148.233.179 (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by human. They were much farther genetically from modern humans than any group of modern humans is from any other group. Scientists disagree over whether Neanderthals were part of the same species as modern humans. However, they were certainly in the same genus, and they would probably seem to us more human than "animal." Marco polo (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

See the "Classification" section of our Neanderthal article for further discussion. Neanderthals could reproduce with Homo sapiens, which suggests they could be considered fundamentally human. However, this isn't set in stone; horses and donkeys can reproduce (creating a mule or, rarely, a hinny), despite being of different species. If you're looking for a yes or no answer, I'd say yes, but I'd add that many people much more informed than me would say no. Taxonomy isn't an exact science. --BDD (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Neanderthals and modern humans did sometimes mate, but it seems exceedingly likely that Neanderthals lacked the final biological refinements of human language capacity into its fully modern form which apparently took place about 50,000-75,000 years ago (what is known archaeologically as the "Great leap forward" or behavioral modernity). AnonMoos (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

According to professor David Christian in his lecture course Big History, Neanderthals and homo sapiens were distinct species but linked to a common ancestor. Our ancestors (homo sapien sapiens is the technical term I think) competed with Neanderthals and won; that is the most accepted theory at this time. What humans had (which Neanderthals may have lacked) was what Christian described as learning which accumulates. Humans, by speech, could pass on what was learned, which accelerated the pace of knowledge. Humans were forever learning new tricks which enabled us to exploit our environment better, to live in new places; Neanderthals, even though they constructed tools, could not keep up.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty meaningless to say that "Neanderthals and homo sapiens were distinct species but linked to a common ancestor"; the same can be said of butterflies and dinosaurs or any two species. The crucial point is how distant the common ancestor is, and in the case of Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens, the answer is "quite recent". Since neanderthals were in the genus Homo, they were human, unless one makes the question tautological by capriciously asserting that only Homo sapiens were human. - Nunh-huh 11:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Except by merging with "humans". They interbred, and it's very likely that most people alive today have a Neanderthal ancestor. It's merely arbitrary that we call ourselves humans and not the continuation of the Neanderthal line. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

JackofOz -- The latest results are that Africans generally have no Neanderthal DNA, while non-Africans have 4% or less Neanderthal DNA, so under those circumstances it's really not "arbitrary" to state that present-day humanity is a continuation of non-Neanderthal modern humans (traditionally called "Cro-Magnons" in a European context), and not a continuation of Neanderthals. Also, Neanderthals had some specialized anatomical features which are not found in modern people. And on the cognitive side, Neanderthals probably had a communicative capacity which was far in advance of chimpanzees, but which fell significantly short of the complexities and capabilities of human languages as we know them today. AnonMoos (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Leave Africans out of the picture and the remaining population of Earth is still "most people", as I said. People are usually more than happy to announce they've discovered they have a Comanche or Basque or Egyptian great-great-great-great-grandmother or some other unexpected ancestor. Well, pretty much all non-Africans can be proud to proclaim their Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon heritage, too. If they had names, and we knew the names of those ancestors, there'd be no holding back. Let not their anonymity become their graves. Grok-Snig, you live on in me, and the Ref Desk answers that come from this pen are those of a Neanderthal. I would have thought that should be pretty obvious by now. :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That's nice, in a retro-hypothetico-sentimentalesque way, but it doesn't change the scientific numbers, or the fact that skeletons of current-day people differ in a number of ways from those of Neanderthals, etc. When the 1-4% number was revealed, one of the news stories had a quote from a scientist who said that it seemed that the modern humans had interbred with Neanderthals just about enough to incorporate genes incorporating resistance to northern or non-African diseases and parasites, and not too much more... AnonMoos (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"retro-hypothetico-sentimentalesque" - why, how sweet, AnonMoos, that's the nicest thing anyone's ever said about me. A perfect word for a melancholy autumn Sunday afternoon.

Sure, our body shapes have changed (it's been a very long time, after all, since all this happened), but that doesn't deny the genetic relationships between them and us. We all have countless lines of descent; for most of us, one of those lines leads back to Neanderthals (call them what you like). You can't accept the 1-4% DNA evidence on the one hand, and then deny any familial connection on the other hand. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You're still kind of missing the point -- the rise of Anatomically modern humans occurred many thousands of years before a few of them mated with Neanderthals, so the anatomy of current-day humans is simply not due to evolution from a Neanderthal base.... AnonMoos (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Missing the point - pfehr! (or however one spells an expression of mock disdain) I make my own points, thank you very much. None of these second-hand points for me, no sirree. You never know where they've been.  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

List of countries by life expectancy

Why does Spain have the highest life expectancy in the EU?79.148.233.179 (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Because people who live in Spain tend to live the longest of all EU nations. --Jayron32 19:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It's tied with Sweden, and only 2.4 months ahead of metro France. I wouldn't have guessed Spain was at the top myself, but most of those countries are so close statistically that it's just an exercise in opinion, at least from what we can offer here, to guess why one is better than the other. All the usual stuff... health care, obesity, endemic disease, smoking, accident rates, those are the big killers. I'm not so sure Spain's very different from many other EU countries in those regards. (ec) Jayron's response is gonna be the most accurate in this entire thread too. Shadowjams (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

In addition to what Jayron and SJ have said, I would note according to the article it's actually only Spanish females who live the longest of all EU nations. They are also the tied (with Switzerland) third in the world. Spanish males only live the third longest of all EU nations and 13th in the world. In addition those are UN estimates for 2005-2010. Right below them is the CIA World Factbook estimates for 2011 where Spain is below Italy and metropolitan France (in overall terms). Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Spanish males live the second longest of all EU nations according to the article. Apparently you counted Norway as an EU country, which it is not. 88.9.107.228 (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

If they are accurate, those statistics are interesting, because Spain has a relatively high (for Europe) percentage of daily smokers. Thinking about how the Spanish lifestyle differs from that of other European countries, I wonder whether moderate daily alcohol consumption and regular consumption of oily fish might have something to do with it. But that's just speculation. Marco polo (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

List of countries by cigarette consumption per capita confirms half of your point. Different food is a commonly cited argument. 88.9.107.228 (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Statistics are curious things. Not to be humourous, but some stats like that are similar to "Why was the number 12 drawn on the lottery more than others in March?" type thing. More research can explain why, but stats usually just state results of events.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Noting that both Spain and Switzerland were neutral in WW2, perhaps avoiding all the stresses of that war helped them live a bit longer. (The Spanish Civil War was also brutal, but most people old enough then to be stressed by it would be dead now, in any case.) If so, you could expect this advantage to soon disappear, as those old enough to be stressed by WW2 also die off. StuRat (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional reasons: the weather is better, sun is good for you, at least less people commit suicide here in Spain. Spain is less radioactive than, for example, Germany. Less population density is good for your health. 88.9.107.228 (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think sunlight is actually good for you, other than helping you get vitamin D₃, which you can get from food and vitamin pills anyway. The downside is skin cancer and skin aging. However, if the weather encourages people to exercise more and be less stressed out, then it might help that way, provided they wear sunblock. StuRat (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe you get vitamine D from the sun. You always get it from the food, the sun just makes you process it, even if you only get a little of it. However, my point here is that it makes you less depressed, mental health is a huge help when it comes to keeping physically healthy too. 88.9.107.228 (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be why I said "helping you get" as opposed to "magically delivers vitamin D that materializes directly from photons". :-) StuRat (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah? And why did you say "you can get from food and vitamin pills"? There is no "can get" here. You get them from the food, the sun just makes you process it. Just ask Jayron if you don't believe me, he seems to know such kind of thing, and it's kind of idle regarding the present question. XPPaul (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Historically, food only contained the precursor, 7-dehydrocholesterol, which then required exposure to UV light to form vitamin D₃. However, both vitamin pills and foods supplemented with D₃ bypass the need for sunlight. StuRat (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe you are right on this one. Vitamin D supplements do not improve the vitamin D level absorption by your body, it only improves the level of vitamin D in your blood, and it can be even detrimental. So, children: do not go with StuRat's suggestion and keep a healthy diet + healthy amount of exposure to sunlight. XPPaul (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Where is ths famed contribution from Jayron? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It was removed here: [14]. I put it back. --Jayron32 23:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It begs the question: why do they live longer? (even if it's just a little bit more than the French). XPPaul (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedea Has An Article About Everything: the Mediterranean diet has been associated with increased longevity for a while now. See also the French paradox, much of which could also apply to Spain. The article emphasises diet but also mentions "a study by Scarabin et al. (2003) comparing activity and health statistics in men from Toulouse and Belfast that shows although the total levels of physical activity are similar for both cities, French men performed more physical activity in their leisure time, possibly accounting for decreased incidence of CHD compared to Northern Ireland." which is thought to be because "the effects of good weather will encourage outdoor leisure pursuits". Finally see Wine and health. Alansplodge (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, but as our article says, that usually includes parts of Italy, and Greece. If we go by the UN table we're using, Italy isn't too bad in terms of the EU. Greece however is barely better then fish and chips with mushy peas or boiled to bits food (yes I know that an extreme exaggeration) UK. I agree with Shadowjams and Canoe, you can come up with random stuff, but given the small difference, proving anyone is the 'reason' is impossible and pointless anyway. We could just as well say it's the Siesta (which according to our article those have some suggested health benefits). Or you could even come with random other wacky stuff like maybe the females benefit somewhat from the lower average age of death of the males or watching bullfighting has health benefits. Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

When comparing measurements, it is difficult to overstate how important it is to think about their uncertainty. A life expectancy is a forecast of how long people are expected to live - this clearly isn't something we can know very precisely. According to Life expectancy#Calculating life expectancies, they are estimated using a number of different pieces of information via a non-trivial process, and the information and methods used depend on what is available, and what the estimates are intended to be used for. The availability and reliability of information will obviously vary from one country to another, and you can see on the list you linked to, that the UN and CIA estimates frequently differ by several years (OK, we are talking about slightly different time periods, but that shouldn't make too much difference) and the countries are in a completely different order. In fact, from a quick glance at the sources, they don't appear to make any attempt to quantify the uncertainty of the results. To my (physics-trained) mind, this suggests that you should treat them with extreme scepticism. I mean, nobody is going to dispute that people in Japan live longer than those in Mozambique, but trying to conclude anything from the tiny differences between Western European countries is probably fruitless. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It is also important to keep in mind that these are "period life expectancies". That means they assume no changes in mortality in the future, which is obviously not a realistic assumption. To determine whether someone born today in Spain can be expected to longer than someone born today in the UK, say, you need to make some assumptions about future mortality improvements. If you make different assumptions about those, then you could end up getting completely different results to the ones suggested by the period life expectancies. You should also remember that the life expectancy for a country doesn't apply to the individuals in that country - if you want to know the life expectancy of a particular individual, you need to take into account things like wealth, education, lifestyle, medical history, family medical history, etc. (there are some bizarre factors that have been shown to have a measurable impact on life expectancy - the month of your birth, for instance). --Tango (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Corporate lawsuit/criminal records

I was wondering where I could look for the records of corporate crimes and lawsuits. For example say business X is found guilty of Y, where is this recorded and how can I access it? I am seeking the records for all large businesses at least in the developed world. Thank you, 65.95.23.172 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Lexis nexis. XPPaul (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Which jurisdiction are you interested in? Shadowjams (talk) 05:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

April 28

The Serbs in the Yugoslav wars

Did the Serbs during the Yugoslav wars show any signs of supremacism or triumphalism? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Many claimed supremacy, yes, especially over Muslim ethnic Albanians. StuRat (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

See Serbia's Political Intellectuals which says; "(Serbian) academics and other intellectuals have promoted a picture of the Serbs as a nation inherently superior to, and destined for greater things than, other nations...".

Thanks to all. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are women beautiful?

Why are some women beautiful? Why are some men beautiful? Nobody knows, including scientists, philosophers. But I may award barnstars to sharp Wikipedians who advance this discussion and move us closer to knowing why or who provide cool comments here.

Philosophers don't seem to know. Any ideas?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Because God started with the best looking rib? HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So that men will want to impregnate them. See sexual selection. Individuals of a species develop characteristics which makes the opposite gender want to have sex with them. It also isn't random or unknown, researchers have identified certain traits that the preponderance of people will find beautiful. The Wikipedia article on Physical attractiveness is rather detailed in this regard. --Jayron32 03:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if Tom's question was intended to be read that way, i.e. "beautiful" in the eyes of men, or more broadly, as if beauty is some absolute concept, and equally valid from the perspective of men and other women? I'm a man, interested in women in general (don't tell my wife that), but I've certainly met some women I don't regard as beautiful. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The most profound message I ever got in a fortune cookie was this: "It is God who makes women beautiful, and the Devil who makes them pretty." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @HiLo48: No, of course it isn't an absolute, as in every woman would be automatically the paragon of beauty. However, the article physical attractiveness has a lot to say on the subject, and it also notes that physical attractiveness is distinct from sexual interest: it is possible to find someone physically attractive without wanting to have sex with them. However, the concept of physical attractiveness as a component of sexual selection is farily sound. Ultimately, human concepts of beauty are arbitrary, in the same way that other species concepts of what makes a good mate are arbitrary. What makes a mandrill get hot and bothered over the sight of a swollen blue ass? What makes a peahen swoon over the sight of a peacock's giant plumage? Why does a ewe want to mate with the ram with the biggest rack? It's all in the drive to pass on your genes. --Jayron32 04:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Many men look for the mate with the biggest rack, too. StuRat (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This reminds of a theory that may exist. Women are usually attracted to a man's brawn and looks. If they were more attracted to their intelligence would we be breeding smarter as a species. I could be wrong about the majority of attractions as well as intelligence being hereditary.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The theory certainly exists as a subset of general Evolutionary Theory and Sexual Selection, and is addressed within the sphere of Evolutionary psychology. Intelligence is indeed partially hereditary (though it is also be influenced by environmental factors from conception onwards), and women's attraction to men usually does include an intelligence factor, since better intelligence enhances survival and therefore successful reproduction just as appropriate physical traits do, though there is always a trade-off between its benefits and the considerabler metabolic expense of maintaining the larger brain necessary.

Characteristics which signal the collection of mental abilities we group under the term "intelligence" enable women to assess a potential mate's desireability: they include inventiveness (enabling one to deal with novel threats), humour (a form of linguistic inventiveness), and artistic ability. If we view human's large brains as men's equivalents to the peacock's tail, we can explain the development of sciences and fine arts as examples of Fisherian runaway.

As a species we certainly have "bred smarter" over the 5+ million years since our ancestor's divergence from that of the chimpanzee/bonobo line, but evolution, which by definition proceeds and manifests over many successive generations, proceeds in macroscopic fauna much more slowly that is observable by an individual member of that fauna. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.194 (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This makes me think of another possibilty about the success of immigrants in their new countries. Is it possible that those that emigrate to a new country have a slight advanage over the indigenous population because of genetics and intelligence? Only those that pass health, education and financial (assuming smarter = more money and education) standards by the new country?--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of things I think are beautiful that I don't want to impregnate. Humans are attractive to other humans for both primary and secondary selection effects; in many cases the secondary effect of forming cohesive social relationships is more important for long term survival of offspring than mere reproductive urges. 70.58.10.111 (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What 70.58 said... --Jayron32 04:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If you think that only women are beautiful, you need to find some prettier men. Or at least ask the opinion of someone with different aesthetic (and perhaps sexual) tastes to you. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting sharp observations, thank you. I agree that the relation between perception of beauty and procreation is reasonable; males find females beautiful, sex happens, DNA continues to future generations. If we did not find women beautiful, then no sex, and then that DNA disappeared. You know the notion that our human bodies are merely vehicles to propagate our all-important DNA. Human bodies are cars; in the driver's seat, is DNA. You know that one, right?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Who's this 'we', Kemosabe? You know the notion that 'females' make up roughly half of the human population. Women and gay men exist, in significant numbers, and play at least as significant a role in evolution as people like you. You know that one, right? 86.140.54.3 (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless someone reproduces, they play NO role in evolution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

People who assist their kin with having kids, but that do not have kids themselves ("reproduces"), still play an evolutionary role when helping to pass on their ancestral genes, see Inclusive fitness and Kin selection. --Modocc (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I will concede that someone who does not reproduce does impact evolution, in a "subtractive" way, by taking his own specific genetics out of the collective gene pool. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Funny Bugs. Perhaps one might argue that gays play a role in human genetic evolution since they can assist non-gay kin in helping their offspring survive and thrive and pass forward their genes, but my sense is this role is tangential and not "significant" as claimed, so I am leaning in the direction of Baseball Bugs overall. My sense is that it is predominantly heterosexual males who initiate sex with females, since it is relatively more difficult for a woman who wants sex with an uninterested man to cause this to happen (but this would make a great Reality TV show provided, of course, that contestants used lassos and belts.) But regardless of who is perceiving the beauty which persons are perceived as beautiful, men or women, gay or straight, how does this happen? The shape of the eyes, the smile, hair -- it happens so fast, this determination of beauty -- in a split second -- wow -- and what I am saying is that I think that nobody knows how this happens, even scientists, even philosophers, but that there is an explanation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

For that split second, one must factor in various preexisting conditions, such as previous exposures to imprinting, perceptual acuity, likes and dislikes such as prejudices and various associations, and, of course, and not least, the instinctive and complex built-in pattern recognitions that influence our cognition. That split second may not last long, but there is a lot going on with it in any case, that is sometimes worth exploring, and sometimes at all levels too. :-) --Modocc (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Most of their genetics are not unique to the individual though, which is why there are many worker ants and only one queen ant per colony. --Modocc (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

When I was perhaps ten, I was crawling on the beach at Lake Michigan making my usual fictional train setup using knee indentations to create "rails" in the sand (one of my usual childish projects) and I came upon the ankles a twelve year old girl in her bikini. She was lying on her back, asleep, knees up, and I found myself staring at her legs and abdomen with intense fascination, not knowing why I was doing this, and feeling even a bit guilty that maybe I was doing something wrong. Why was her body so exciting to me? My brain was somewhat fixated on wanting to keep exploring her bodily shape. Why?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody told me to look at women's bodies. I did not learn this from school. I do not think I picked up such a behavior pattern from TV or newspapers or the general culture. I doubt that I had noticed role-model men looking and enjoying the female shape -- I was not copying a socially acceptable behavior pattern. My current best guess is something in my brain wiring or neurological chemistry was pre-programmed to cause me to find the female shape fascinating. Yes, it was beautiful. And yes, it was attractive. But how does this happen in the brain? --Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have read much of philosophy and science and I have yet to come across a good solid explanation which resonates with me. My hunch is that neuroscience may come up with a better theory in the next hundred years if the rapid pace of discovery is maintained. I have a tentative theory about why facial symmetry is related to beauty here which came about after I worked on articles such as physical attractiveness and dating but the symmetry-beauty hypothesis is only a sliver of the puzzle; the main puzzle is quite elusive.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

In that case, if what you are interested in is a scientific explanation for attraction, may I suggest you post on the Science ref desk? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Proof that women don't have a monopoly on beauty

Fellows, let's be reasonable, huh? This is not the time or the place to perform some kind of a half-assed autopsy on a fish... And I'm not going to stand here and see that thing cut open and see that little Kintner boy spill out all over the dock. Anthony J Pintglass (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Who says women have a monopoly on physical beauty? Please view accompanying image.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Now that there reminds me of a beautiful dark hair classmate from junior high school (back when Jaws came out). I've a nice picture of her holding my pinata, a Great White shark, that I made for my Spanish language class to beat up on. It created somewhat of a ruckus too because it was difficult to bust as it withstood a number of hard whacks, but it did spill its hard candy. :-) --Modocc (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

God's Responsibilities

Does God have responsibilities, obligations, or duties? Is God responsible?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Which of the many possibly theoretical deities are you referring to, by the term "God"? →Στc. 06:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I sometimes think she is irresponsible, just like you Bowei Huang 2. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you mean the Christian God, then His responsibility would be to act out of a perfect moral sense, to remain eternally consistent. To perfectly fullfill His character as laid out in the Bible. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Please explain the consistency between "an eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek". No, don't bother. I've heard all the clichés before, just like that first lot. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Then why ask? Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That should be obvious. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

All that is obvious to me is that you are conceited, and that you assume that your understanding is perfect. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I claim no such certainty. It's you, writing in meaningless, old fashioned, oft-repeated clichés, with no added rational thought, who seems to think he just knows that his God is right. It saddens me. HiLo48 (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If you don't claim such certainty, then why do you answer your own question so matter of factly? Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Er, "an eye for an eye" isn't stated to be God's law, but just "the law in those days". And "turn the other cheek" was Jesus' advice to his followers, thousands of years later (hundreds of years after Genesis reached its present form). The authors of those two passages never expected them to be compared in this way. The real reason we shouldn't answer such a question is that (just like Bowei) you aren't interested in a sensible answer. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's all claimed to be God's word. Obfuscation never helps. I am certain that I don't know. I'm also certain that Plasma Physics doesn't know, but his faith and belief that he knows gets in the way of rational discussion, which is what an encyclopaedia is for. HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"It's all claimed to be God's word" is a fairly unhelpfully sweeping characterisation of the views of scripture taken by the various faiths who use part or all of what we call 'the Bible'. To take the Genesis example, even those who claim that the Bible is the infallible word of God would not necessarily claim that it says "an eye for an eye" is God's law (some do, some don't). But equally, there are millions of Jews for whom Genesis is scriptural, but the gospels (for which "turn the other cheek" comes) are not. You're letting your personal beef with Plasmic Physics get in the way of considering the question seriously. You can't juxtapose any two arbitrary phrases from different parts of scripture and claim to be persuaded of anything when they don't agree. I also am certain I don't know for sure whether there's a God. But there are perfectly respectable academic discussions to be had about the historical origins and meaning of scripture, the consistency (or not) of theology, and so on. None of this requires us to take one side's opinion or another on faith.

For what it's worth, I think Plasmic Physics is mischaracterising Christian (and Jewish) theology with his answer above. It's not at all clear that those are God's responsibilities, or that they could even be regarded as meaningful responsibilities at all. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

An eye for an eye is a lesson in fair justice, turn the other cheeck does not replace it, but adds to it - it is a lesson in long-suffering. Explained: if justice is to be carried out, then make the punishment equal the crime, no more no less; suffering at the hands of another is better than to exact revenge. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation, but I think there's more to it than that - Jesus said that by loving your enemy, you "heap hot coals on his head". I think the idea is to frustrate the desire to do evil by showing it to be unproductive. But all of these interpretations are what we read into the text; they're not inherent. And when Jesus speaks of the law, he generally seems to mean the law attributed to Moses, rather than the Noahide law or the "eye for an eye" customary law which, as I say, doesn't seem to be set out as God's law anywhere. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is always more, but are we really interested in comprehensively discussing the meaning behind these two phrases? Jesus speaks of two sets of laws in the Gospels, He mensions that He did not come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it. This is God's law, any of the given laws that protects and nurtures relationships between God and fellow mankind, namely the Ten Commandments, but any other given law that is build upon it is included. The law which was nailed to the cross, was the laws concerning customs, like the fixing of tassels to the garments, and the Holy observances, like Passover. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I really don't share your interpretation here at all; but we can debate that another time, as it's rather off-topic. It's been pointed out to me that "The law in those days was 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'" is in fact a direct allusion to Babylonian law (see the 'punishment' section of that article, and also lex talionis). Like St Paul's allusion to the liar paradox, this is a clear example of the biblical authors deliberately referring to external matter that their readers would have been familiar with. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

A better question may be do God's' have responsibilities...etc. I once heard a quote: "If God wanted everyone to get along, whe did he give himself so many names?"--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If a putative sole God did have responsibilities, obligations, and/or duties, what would compel him/her/it to fulfil them? I see a circular argument looming. By analogy with human (and for that matter non-human) societies, a pantheon would in this respect be more intelligible. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.194 (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

See Covenant. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 08:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If He was not compelled to fulfill them, then why should He be trusted, why should He be worshipped? Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

But the obvious trite response to that is if God is compelled to do something, is he really omnipotent? And if he is not omnipotent, why should he be worshipped? And is he compelled by something more powerful than him? And why don't we worship that instead? And so on and so forth. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the word often used here is kenosis, which has a specific meaning in Christology, but can be used more broadly. Essentially, God may in principle be omnipotent, but chooses to limit his/her power voluntarily by (for example) entering into covenants with humans, or becoming human him/herself. The Tanakh in particular emphasises that God "keeps his promise forever" - thus showing an obvious form of self-limitation. This isn't logically inconsistent, because clearly nothing can compel God not to keep his word. And that's very much what I think of when I think of God's responsibilities. (I'm something of an agnostic, so I wouldn't like to say that it really happened like that - but that's the theory.) AlexTiefling (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure the word kenosis is "often used here"? I've been involved in a fair few religious discussions and have never heard it before. Thanks for broadening my vocabulary and knowledge. 10:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if I'm honest, by "here" I mean "in this context" and by "often" I mean "sometimes" - and this is pure anecdata, mainly gathered from personal discussions with other theologians. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Although reading our kenosis article, I see that the 'Protestantism' section attributes a related view of kenosis to C S Lewis; namely, that the act of creation was a self-emptying too - that self-emptying and self-denial characterise God more widely than just in the specifics of the incarnation. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying, is that He is obligated to act wholy according His character to uphold His reputation as a perfect being. If He fails in a single case to be perfect, then it would make Scipture null and void. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's far easier for scripture (written and transmitted by humans) to fail than for God (here assumed to be essentially perfect) to do so. So it seems strange that you would think God was bound to be a certain way in order to justify scripture. Perfection is surely not a matter of reputation, but of essential property. And we all act in accordance with our characters all the time. "God must be as God is" is a pretty vacuous statement. I think fidelity to his covenants is a far more historically and theologically relevant form of responsibility. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

We can look at it another way, He has no obligations, fidelity to His Covenants is not optional. Perfection is His nature, and by definition He is unable to deviate from it, which is not to say that He has no free will, simply that He cannot choose to deviate. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The very idea of humans pontificating on what God can or cannot choose to do is the most absurd, and, if I may say so, arrogant, thing imagineable. If you accept He exists, then you accept His nature is utterly unknowable, and that He is not to be held to human concepts of morality or capacity. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that He's not perfect? Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I said nothing about His perfection. But since you ask, I will say His perfection is not what any human can understand as "perfection", which is why, when things go "wrong", humans are wrong to either blame Him or to deny He could possibly even exist if He could be so cruel as to allow such a dreadful thing to happen. Anyone who can create the Universe has more than a few more tricks up His sleeve than humans can possibly comprehend, and there are reasons for everything. "God moves in a mysterious way" and the mystery never gets any closer to being solved. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

However, I was talking about His perfection. Perfection in the sense of the word is synonymous with incorruptable. Failing fidelity to a Covenant requires a failure of perfection. Since He is able to be only perfect, then He cannot choose to fail. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

But isn't that just a convenient way of ignoring something that doesn't make any sense? What is more arrogant, to try to understand what "God" is, or to dismiss the question as unanswerable and those who ask it as fools? Anyway, if you accept that there is an omnipotent and omniscient universe-creating God, would it not have been possible for him to create humans with the ability to understand him and why he did that? Why must God be mysterious? (And why am I asking this rhetorical questions to which I already know the answers? Another mystery!) Adam Bishop (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Or would amen be more appropriate? Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What others and myself read into the Bible is that God invites us to try and get to know Him, to try and understand His motives, why we should want to bother with Him. Even so, because His nature is so complex, we'll never completely be able to understand Him. The Bible gives just enough for us to make an informed decision, dangling the carrot if you will. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Where did he say you should use capitals on his pronouns? HiLo48 (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

He didn't say. Some people choose to do so as a mark of respect. (Btw, Russian capitalises the 2nd person (You) in writing, but not the first person (I); English does it the other way around; there are no absolutes with spelling.) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 12:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

But that's exactly what I mean. Why would God create humans who were incapable of understanding him? Surely it would have been possible for him to create humans who could fully understand him. Since I've wasted half of my life arguing about this on the Internet, I know someone will say ah, but God wants humans to love him and to choose to come to a relationship with him, and thus he created humans with free will so that we would have a choice. Even accepting this very narrow definition of God, why would he do that? After many similarly annoying questions and answers we will eventually conclude that we just don't know and that is the mystery and beauty of faith, which only leads back to the original question, why didn't God, or at least this particular Christian definition of God, just create humans who were fully capable of understanding him? Why the carrot? Why all the hoops? (Why even create humans at all for that matter? Why even bother creating a material universe?) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody knows with certainty whether God exists, what powers He or She might have, or where He or She might live, whether there is an afterlife, and so forth. And mankind may never know for sure. It is practically impossible for us to guess what was like before the Big Bang 14 billion years ago. My guess (I'm 99% sure) is that God does not exist, that life sprang spontaneously on Earth based on random cause-and-effect relations among chemicals, and protein-based beings which learned to replicate themselves, proliferated, and humans are the millions-years-old product of evolution. But all this is only a guess.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Au contraire, Tom. Millions of people are absolutely certain God exists; they have a certainty that comes from within and can never be eroded by exegeses or theological discourses or scientific commentaries of any kind. You make the same mistake most scientists make, of believing that only they can unlock and interpret the Sacred Book of Knowledge. They have been given access to certain pages, that's all. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right Jack. Millions of people are absolutely certain God exists. Sadly, many of them also believe that the same language that convinced them will convince all others. And many non-believers see that form of language as totally unscientific and hope that explicit, fact based evidence (or lack thereof) will convince the believers that they're wrong. It leads to very disjointed conversations, as we've had above. HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Scientists are in a bit of a bind; so far, there's never been any evidence that would convince them of the existence of God, but if there were any "explicit, fact based evidence", it could only ever support the case for God's existence. They'll never be able to prove He doesn't exist, that's if they abide by their own rigorous standards of proof that they apply to everything else, because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And yet, people who call themselves scientists take it upon themselves to say that believers are "wrong" (your word). They have no right to do this if they're wearing their scientist hat; they can only do it if they're wearing their "fellow human being who has his own opinions on unproven stuff" hat. And even then, it's not a matter of right vs. wrong. The most they can say is "I do not share your beliefs and opinions". You tell someone they're "wrong" if you can point to where and how and why they're wrong. So far, science has not had any effect on the beliefs of believers; and vice-versa, of course. Which neatly exemplifies the two camps: one camp needs scientific proof in order to believe in things; while the other camp giggles quietly in the knowledge that if proof were available, there would be no need for belief or faith; and so they believe, but in the only way that makes any sense of belief - without proof, scientific or otherwise.

Btw, science is very much a Johnnie-come-lately in this game; humans have been believing in stuff since they emerged from the primordial ooze. I'm not putting science down here; we'd all be lost without the benefits we all take for granted that science has given us. But science does not speak for all matters; there are some things that are simply beyond its reach. Like faith and belief. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Being a Christian (or whatever) and giggling at others' lack of faith is as useless as the opposite way around. I suppose if I have learned nothing else from this conversation, I at least enjoy the confirmation that everyone is an asshole no matter what, heh. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No, that wasn't what I wrote. Not giggling at anyone's lack of faith per se, but at their need to first have proof of the thing they want to have faith in. By the time the proof arrives, the need for faith has gone. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't know about everyone else, but don't include me with 'nobody'. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The process of understanding is meant to create happiness, each revelation is inspiration. He created humans to prove to the heavenly audience, that it is possible to turn away from narsisism, and that He is merciful upon those who turn back to Him through humility, all this being possible only through forming a personal relationship. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my hypothesis about language PP. I'm sure what you've written is very meaningful and helpful to you, but it's largely incomprehensible and meaningless to me. The bits that aren't so are very ambiguous. HiLo48 (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You little beauty! There's some more evidence. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What heavenly audience? The angels and so forth without free will? God created them too, surely? But was this a mistake or an experiment gone wrong? He didn't get it quite right, so he had to create humans? (Which turned out great, obviously...) Adam Bishop (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The angles have free will, that's why it is possible for Satan to exist. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I must be thinking of Islamic angels. In any case, how is possible for Satan to exist, blah blah blah etc etc. But forget all that, now we're just splitting hairs over specific Christian doctrines. We haven't even determined why a God, however this is interpreted, would find it necessary to create a material universe. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

He created a universe, to be the greatest work of art, and to provide a theater for humanity as the longest running sociospiritual experiment. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

For a Jewish perspective on the Divine's self-limiting, see Tzimtzum. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I had not come across this before, and it sounds somewhat closer to what I had meant than the terms I'd been using. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

God's responsibilities, obligations and duties are set by whoever He reports to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Therefore, no one. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

And the boy wins a cigar. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a new conclusion, just a repeat of what was already discussed above. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a new cigar, either. Although it was a good quarter cigar. The other three quarters had been smoked earler. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Now all I need to do is take up smoking. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure this is covered above, but the "eye for an eye" is the basis for criminal compensation in Biblical law - if someone damages someone's eye (or any other part of the body, as made clear by the rest of the verse), you need to establish the value of the eye and compensate them. It's a foundation stone of the Jewish legal system. "Turn the other cheek" is nothing to do with Judaism (it's New Testament) but even if it were, it's not a legal statement, but a moral/ethical one. --Dweller (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Alex and I covered the meaning of these phrases. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Jorge Borges quote

It's from Labyrinths, I think, to the effect that each innovation creates its own precedents - by which he meant, we don't know they're precedents until the innovation comes about... Does anyone know where to find it?

Thanks,

Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I think so. In his essay "Kafka and His Precursors", translated by James E. Irby in the Penguin edition of Labyrinths, he says, "The fact is that every writer creates his own precursors. His work modifies our conception of the past, as it will modify the future." --Antiquary (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful! So prompt, and spot on! Question answered, thank you - someone put the SOLVED icon up please! Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Printing The Gideons Bible

I came across a question here which got me wondering. How do Gideons International print their bibles? Do they do it in house or do they engage a publisher? Where does the unusual leatherette cover come from? I did try Googling this, but nothing immediately jumped out at me. So I'm curious, particularly as I still have my copy that was presented to me at school. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Try their email? tgi@gideons.org --Canoe1967 (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is rather old but says they had printers in Philadelphia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Two of the four on Ebay (shame on them for selling bibles that say 'property of The Gideons' right in the picture) have two Chicago addresses. If anyone is in another country, they may be able to phone a local hotel and ask them to look inside one. I am curiuos if all languages are printed in the same country or print house.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Kantor question

Milan (son of Dr Arthur) Kantor and Anne Murdoch (married 1957) had five children, four of whom are named Michael, Julie, Tom and Eve. What is the name of their other son please? Kittybrewster ☎ 16:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Who are these people, Kitty, where did they live, and why are they notable enough for any of the details you seek to be recorded anywhere? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]}

Annes's brother is Rupert Murdoch. Mikenorton (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess he's notable, but is his sister notable? Neither she nor her husband appear to have Wikipedia articles. HiLo48 (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a rule that questions on the Reference Desk must have something to do with Wikipedia articles? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No, but there's not much point in asking such a question if no-one here is likely to have heard of them. A question about me, my parents, and my siblings would be pretty pointless. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Tom died at the age of 35 sometime in the early 2000s. As the Kantors are well-known in Australian environmentalist circles, I thought there would have been an obituary for him in one of the papers that might also list his surviving siblings. Sorry, Kittybrewster, but I can't find one. Perhaps someone else can. Bielle (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

@69.62: Originally I understand that the Ref Desks were set up to help find information for articles, but they have not been that restricted in the 4 years or so I have been a regular here. Bielle (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Found a reference to the obituary, printed as follows:

KANTOR. - Tom. Our adorable Tom, died suddenly on Thursday, 25th of January. He will be with us in our hearts and memories forever. Loved by his parents Anne and Milan, wife Dominique, brothers and sisters Julie, Martin, Eve, Kate and Michael, Published in Herald Sun on January 30, 2001

It appears the missing sibling is Martin. Bielle (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, Kate. There are 5 surviving siblings apparently. Bielle (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Islam in Italy population

Which cities of Italy has significant Muslim population and which nations do these Muslim come from the most? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.23 (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Our article Islam in Italy should help here. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Spain Muslim population

Which cities of Spain have significant Muslim population and which nations do these Muslim mostly come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.23 (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, Spain was a Muslim nation until 1492. Our article Islam in Spain should help here. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What you mean is that at least a region of modern Spain was mostly Muslim until 1492, I'm sure. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

All cities of Spain (and Italy, to answer two questions at once) have significant Muslim populations. Many small towns as well (If you think about it, even one Muslim can be "significant" if the total population of the town is small enough). Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Both answers above are off-topic. The second is even an off-topic answer to a non-asked question.

Melilla and Ceuta have the largest Muslim population in Spain. Most come from Marocco. 88.9.107.228 (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what is off-topic about referring the OP to a Wikipedia article on the subject in question? Sheesh. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"Being a Muslim nation until 1492"? 88.9.107.228 (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Tammy then provided a link to Islam in Spain, which includes details of the current Spanish Muslim population. PLease read what we give you before criticising it as "off-topic". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Pls read my links to discover that Tammy's link was off-topic. It says nothing about cities, just that Muslims live in Spain (like everywhere else). 88.9.107.228 (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

So it didn't give you all the details you wanted. That hardly qualifies it as "off-topic". At least acknowledge when people give you something in the ballpark of the information you ask for, and please do not bite the hand that feeds you. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 88.9 that Islam in Spain is somewhat off-topic. He should have given a link to Islam_in_Spain#Recent_immigration_and_conversion instead, I think. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The OP asked "...which nations do these Muslim mostly come from?" Tammy's initial answer suggested to me that many of them come from Spain. This, and the previous question, seem to be written from the perhaps false premise that most Muslims are immigrants. Given world events of the past couple of decades, and a particular trial proceeding in Norway right now, this is sensitive territory. Tammy's response was completely on-topic. Facts can be very useful.

Well, there were Muslims in Spain up to 1492, but by then it was hardly "a Muslim nation". Afterwards the ones that were still there were expelled (as were the Jews), so there aren't really any "native" Spanish Muslims, certainly not going all the way back to the fifteenth century anyway. All Muslims currently in Spain are relatively recent arrivals. So...perhaps the answer was a bit misleading, but it was unnecessary for 88.9 to be such a dick about it. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Muslims in Ceuta & Melilla are definately 'native'. --Soman (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed. Alansplodge (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of Muslims in Spain and Italy are immigrants because they were born outside those countries. The situation is probably different in France where probably the majority of Muslims there were born in French territory, i.e. they are native Muslims. I fail to understand the relevance of those facts in relation to the trial of a bigoted mass-murderer in Norway. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Charles Stuart the pretender

Is Charles II of England/Scotland typically considered a pretender in the context of the Commonwealth? To my surprise, his article only once mentions his pretender status — and that's because the English kings were pretenders to the French throne at the time. Of course I understand that it could have been omitted from the article, but it seems to be a big enough issue that I wouldn't expect it to have been omitted from a featured article. Nyttend (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The official position is that he was the king during the English Commonwealth. As our article says, all the paperwork from the restoration was drafted with his reign pre-dated to the death of his father. During the Commonwealth itself, he was probably considered a pretender, but history was kind of re-written after he was invited back. --Tango (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I've just checked the royal family's website, here, and it has his reign starting in 1660, so I guess it isn't the official position any more. --Tango (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue in which I'm particularly interested (in the sense that I'm researching it, not that I'm asking for help here about it) is his status in Scotland, since they attempted to crown him in 1650 before Cromwell forced him to the Continent. Scottish and Scottish-influenced works that I'm reading tend to speak of him as the king during this period, not as a pretender. Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Our article says he was proclaimed King of Scotland a few days after his father's execution in 1649 (albeit with same caveats) and was crowned in Scotland in 1651. Our article's infobox describes him as being king in Scotland throughout the period - I don't see any reason to doubt that description. --Tango (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not doubting it (thus I said, "not that I'm asking for help here about it"); I was essentially wondering if that were a common approach among contemporary scholars, or if they more commonly considered him a pretender. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that the political urgency behind early modern Britons being claimed as a rightful king or pretender has evaporated, historians are unlikely to take positions on the righteousness or otherwise or particular monarchs or claimed monarchs. Chris Hill, for example, in Century of Revolution summarises him rapidly as Charles II when referring to him as King (Scottish recognition, return to England), and as Charles Stuart when talking about him as an exile court in France. I have been assured that the historiography of the revolution has moved on since Hill, but I am not currently up on it. I would suggest avoiding Biographies, unless published by University Presses, when sounding the scholarly treatment of Charles in exile. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"Pretender" is probably the wrong word here. Doesn't that term assume that someone else is actually the King? Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

According to our pretender article, he coulda been a pretender (sorry). Looie496 (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

April 29

Voyage au Pôle Sud et dans l'Océanie sur les corvettes L'Astrolabe et La Zélée

Is there an online translation of Voyage au Pôle Sud et dans l'Océanie sur les corvettes L'Astrolabe et La Zélée in English?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Part of a translation can be found here [15]. Mikenorton (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin

Was evidence of large scale rape of german women in the battle of berlin by soviet soldiers supressed in the soviet press? Was the story A woman in berlin also banned in the soviet press? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The Soviet press only reported exactly what the Communist Party wanted people to hear. Any attempt at comparison with Western news agecies is a bit pointless. See Eastern Bloc information dissemination: "The ruling authorities viewed media as a propaganda tool, and widely practiced censorship to exercise almost full control over the information dissemination. The press in Communist countries was an organ of, and completely reliant on, the state." More information in Central newspapers of the Soviet Union and Pravda. So no, I think the chances of them publishing anything that showed the Red Army in a bad light, are infinitesimally small. Alansplodge (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

In a bad light? "Why, our soldiers are the strongest in the world! The most energetic in the world! The most vigorous! The most potent! They never give in! They never take no for an answer!..." :) Wnt (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite. I rather suspect that the plight of German civilians would have solicited very little sympathy from ordinary Russians, after being at the receiving end of the Master Race's quest for Liebensraum. ""I ask you: Do you want total war? If necessary, do you want a war more total and radical than anything that we can even imagine today?" Joseph Goebbels in the Sportpalast speech, 1943. Be careful what you wish for. Alansplodge (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Alan, don't confuse Lebensraum (no i) with Liebestraum. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

D'oh! But good old Wikipedea knew what I meant, it blue-linked to the right page despite the spelling. I'm afraid my knowledge of German is from a less than reliable source ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the OP is talking about A Woman in Berlin Rojomoke (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Beevor claiming to authenticate a diary by text analysis is certainly "interesting;" I await his publication on the matter in a scholarly journal. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Mildred Harris Chaplin and Edward VIII - an affair, or a Wikipedia myth?

Tidying up an article today, I was checking a link and came across Mildred Harris, which claimed that she had had an affair with Edward VIII (then the Prince of Wales) circa 1920. They certainly met in 1920, but the cited source doesn't bear out anything more than them having danced at a reception, and googling around doesn't seem to find anything that might have been sourced from Wikipedia in the first place.

On the other hand, it's certainly not implausible; the Prince had an awful lot of affairs (real and rumoured), they're often not mentioned individually in biographies, and the tabloid gossip-press of the early twentieth century is one of the things that doesn't get digitised very well. Can anyone confirm this one way or the other? Shimgray | talk | 15:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This site doesn't mention her. (I do like the title though!)--TammyMoet (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What are the legal measures in place on an international level to deal with internet pornography, gambling, and others? Twirp2012 (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There have been many efforts to deal with internet pornography, internet gambling, and other internet crimes, on a national level. What is being done in these areas on an international scale?Twirp2012 (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography

Interpol is active in combatting 419 scams and other internet fraud.[16]

For gambling, the World Trade Organization's rules have been invoked on online gambling[17][18][19]. But there's not much in the way of specific international agreements, presumably because the US and other countries differ so much. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

See Universal jurisdiction. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court appointed from academia

I am trying to determine the names justices of the U.S. Supreme (past and present) who were appointed to the court while actively serving in a college or university as a professor, dean or other academic position -full or part time. Thank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.241.92.125 (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It is unlikely (though not impossible, just unlikely) that such a list has been specifically compiled exactly as you wish, so you're best route is to do some research yourself. Category:United States Supreme Court justices lists every supreme court justice (also check the nested category for chief justices) and there should be enough of a biography for each for you to comile your own data. --Jayron32 19:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

For biographies of current Justices, see http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx . —— Shakescene (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This isn't directly responsive to your question, but it's been rarer in recent years for U.S. Supreme Court Justices to have courtroom experience questioning witnesses and arguing before juries, which has sometimes led to some odd assumptions about what the parties can reasonably be expected to know (whether you're looking from the point of view of a prosecutor, defendant, litigant, defense lawyer, trial judge, police officer or news reporter). Sandra Day O'Connor worked for or as the district attorney in San Mateo County, California and Maricopa County, Arizona (Phoenix), while, as the Attorney-General of a small state, New Hampshire, I think that David Souter may have prosecuted some cases personally. Sonia Sotomayor has also had practical trial court experience. But most of the justices in recent years seem to have been appellate judges (on a state supreme court or a United States Court of Appeal) whose previous experience was either as an appellate lawyer or in academia. Thurgood Marshall and Elana Kagan were both Solicitor General of the United States. Charles Evans Hughes was governor of New York, and Earl Warren was governor of California. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Earl Warren was assistant city attorney of Oakland and Alameda County District Attorney, it's likely that would have involved courtroom experience. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point, I'm sure that's true (although I should refresh my memory from his memoirs). I mentioned Hughes and Warren, as I mentioned the former Solicitors General, more because they weren't appointed from academia or directly from another bench. But I didn't make a clean transition on the page or in my mind from my previous point about trial experience. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Scalia was an academic before he became an appeals court judge, though he almost certainly had practical trial experience while at Jones Day and did argue 1 case before the US Supreme Court (he won). Felix Frankfurter was appointed to the Court from Harvard Law School.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Women as the fairer sex?

Apparently, attractive men are difficult to grasp. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Quantum Leap (TV series) cast promotional photo.jpg

Our article on Quantum Leap mysteriously doesn't mention the way Scott Bakula, with softly coiffed hair, ends up briefly naked or semi-naked in just about every episode that isn't about racism. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC) ... Maybe because to do so would be original research? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC) ... Must find scholarly discussion of female gaze in 80s scifi... we should probably leave this caption box now. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, women have been called the "fairer" sex. I don't know the exact meaning of the term , fair, or which it originated. But as a heterosexual straight boy, I realize that I find girls way more visually attractive then boys. I wanted to know if it is just accepted that girls look better than boys and if so, do girls find boys as visually attractive as boys find girls (or more scientific terms-male to female etc.).

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.19.48 (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"Fair" is a word that, over history, has had lots of related (and not-so-related) meanings, and it is quite likely that the original author of the phrase may have intended several of them at once. For some examples, "fair" can mean "pale" or "light colored" (as in "fair skinned"), it can mean just or equitable (as in "that's a fair cop"), if can mean dainty or slight of build, it can mean "within the rules" (as in a "fair ball" in baseball), there are lots of possibilities, and it may be quite likely that the term encompasses multiple of these definitions. --Jayron32 19:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the more oft-used term is "the fair sex". "Fair" originally meant beautiful or pleasant,[20] and all it's other meanings derive from that in some way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't want to inhibit your enthusiasm, but many people considered expressions such "fair(er) sex" / "the fair (one)" etc. to refer to women to be a rather hackneyed cliché long before the rise of modern feminism... AnonMoos (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Evolution has seen to it that, on average, males find females more attractive than males, and vice versa: see sexual selection. At the same time, many people can appreciate the appearance of members of their own sex even without being attracted to them (and of course there are some people who are attracted to members of their own sex). I think that the criteria for male and female beauty are somewhat different (though both are to some degree cultural), and most people would not try to find an objective comparison between the attractiveness of men and women. --ColinFine (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, 98, I think you'd actually find this article helpful in broadening your perspective [21]. Embarrassingly, both my pictured examples are mentioned. Or this one [22] on the role of Star Trek in the development of fandom and vidding (the Original Series was pretty equal opportunities in terms of eye candy). I actually thought it was pretty funny that our article on Quantum Leap didn't mention the nudity, given the amount of unsourced observations that are in the article. It's not Original Research just to note the contents of a TV show... ;) 86.140.54.3 (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It's possible "fair", which is also synonomous with blonde, dates from ancient Rome where blonde hair was considered a symbol of beauty; many of the women (who were mainly brunettes) either dyed their hair or wore blonde wigs made from the hair of German women.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

In traditional English usage, "fair" was by no means synonymous with blonde. It could sometimes mean "good looking" generally. If "fair" was contrasted with "dark" (as in "tall dark and handsome"), a number of things would be relevant (hair, eye-color, slight variations in Caucasian skin tones, etc.), and the word still would not really be synonymous with blonde (though often implying blonde). AnonMoos (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Just go along to any newspaper shop and compare the number of pictures of women to men even in the women's magazines. No real competition there as to which type image sells better. Dmcq (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

That is something always made me curious. Even after the beginning of the era of gender equality, why do the magazines are edited keeping male readership in mind? Why don't the mags emphasizes male beauty keeping women readership in mind? Why do male models have less demand than women models (proved from the fact male models are paid less)? Don't women like to watch pictures of male physique? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Mayor of London

Brian Paddick's manifesto for Mayor of London includes a pledge to introduce "tough payback sentences" (ie. getting people convicted of criminal offences to work in the community). Does the London Mayor have authority over criminal sentencing? Isn't London subject to the same sentencing guidelines as the rest of England and Wales? Unfortunately, our article on the mayoralty doesn't go into much detail about what powers they have. --Tango (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, but in the US, we have a separation of powers, such that its not uncommon for sentencing guidelines to be passed by legislatures, like California's three-strike rule, perhaps at the request or promise of some elected governor with the influence of their political "mandate" to do so and it takes someone with enough political headwind tailwind to do this. Of course, even then, the judiciary and the state and federal constitutions usually have considerable say as to what's acceptable. I suppose that this guy seeking the mayor-ship, who does not appear to be a career politician, seeks a similar influence. --Modocc (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, London doesn't have its own legislature (the London Assembly just scrutinises the work of the mayor, it can't actually pass laws). Only a fairly short list of powers are devolved from the national government and legislature to the mayor, and I didn't think sentencing was one of them. --Tango (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not having the actual power and authority to do something doesn't mean that a politician will not make grandiose claims in order to get elected. I think every politician since the very first election in history has made claims about what they will do in office, and these claims rarely have any connection to reality when checked against the delineated powers availible to that office. They all do this. It doesn't matter if the Mayor of London can actually bring about the changes that he promises, he merely has to make the promise so that he'll get the votes. What he does once in office, and doesn't have to pander any more, are entirely unrelated to what he does while campaigning. It's actually better that he makes claims he can't accomplish, since he can then put the blame on others ("I tried to get these new laws passed, but the people who actually should have made these laws opposed me! Elect me again, but throw them out!") --Jayron32 19:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand it from the point of view of the candidates. From the point of view of me, a voter, though, I'd like to know if he can actually do what he is pledging to do. I know no candidate is going to do everything they say they will, but there are things in his manifesto that he definitely can't do then that would count strongly against him in my book. --Tango (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Offender Payback is a species of probation, which in London is overseen by the London Probation Trust. That's part of the National Offender Management Service, which is part of the Ministry of Justice, which means they work for Ken Clarke. LPT works with, but not for, the London Crime Reduction Board, which the mayor chairs (ref). In January the mayor became the Police and Crime Commissioner for London (ahead of other parts of England, who don't get PCCs until November). The powers and responsibilities of the PCC are listed here - still not directly probation either. So no, the Mayor doesn't have powers over how the probation is done. But that doesn't mean the Mayor doesn't have lots of influence (and a brief look at other mayoral candidates shows them also saying stuff about payback, so it's not an overstatement confined to Paddick). In practice those doing community payback often end up working for the mayor (often by means of the social work department) - picking up litter, cleaning old folks centres, etc., tasks some have criticised as Misfits-like makework. And many offenders (including I think all young offenders) are managed by an inter-departmental team that includes the social work department and the probation service, and the relevant borough's Community Safety Partnership also influences how things are done (and those usually have several people who work, eventually, for the mayor) - for example, the Richmond CSP website is here (I imagine they're seeing a worrying uptick in top hat related crimes...). So the mayor is in some position to influence what offenders do, and obviously enjoys an effective bully pulpit. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the mayor can influence the London's district members of the House of Commons to introduce significant top-down changes? Maybe there are some precedences for that sort of influence? --Modocc (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I heard a discussion on BBC Radio 4 a few weeks ago about the referendums over elected mayors for other cities, where one speaker was arguing for a No vote because the powers of the proposed mayors have not been laid out. From what he said, there is an expectation that once in office, Mayors would ask for additional powers to be devolved to them. Having said that, I wouldn't think that sentencing policy would be among these. --ColinFine (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

For completeness, worth noting that Mayor of London, which OP is asking about, is an existing post, with existing powers, whereas Mayor of, say, Bristol, is subject to the 'new post, who knows what they'll be allowed to do' problem --Saalstin (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This practice seems widespread: "The UK Independence Party candidate for Mayor of London has defended making policy pledges which he would not have the power to deliver". --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I get the impression that many of the promises being made (even those that fit within the mayor's responsibilities) cannot be kept without support from the London Assembly (which can apparently amend the Mayor's budget with a 2/3 majority), the London boroughs, and the national government. In any case, if caught pledging to do X outside their remit, the candidates can simply say "I will lobby the Borough Councils to do X" or "the Mayor should obviously be responsible for X, and I will persuade the government to allow this". An example of this: this article mentions that Boris Johnson has been talking about increasing the level of central government spending on London relative to the rest of the country (something obviously a long way outside the Mayor's powers). Actually, looking for relevant articles has convinced me that London's system of local government is really, really stupid - the various bodies themselves seem to be unable to clearly explain what they are responsible for, so it is unsurprising that Wikipedia's attempts are less than explicit. At least none of it is as crazy as the City of London Corporation (in which you can stand for election if the incumbents let you, and you can vote if you are appointed by one of the City's businesses). 130.88.73.65 (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

April 30

Textbook coverage of the Cold War

Did 1950's-1970's US Social Studies textbooks provide greater coverage to the Cold War, than moderen US social studies textbooks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary. When I was in school in the 1970s, history textbooks went no closer to the present than superficial coverage of the Kennedy administration, not even covering the Cuban missile crisis. There was just a final chapter titled something like "The Postwar Years". Modern textbooks typically have a chapter devoted to the Cold War, from beginning to end. Marco polo (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I had U.S. history, I believe, three times in junior high and high school and in no instance did we get further than WWII. The book went farther but the teachers never got hrough all the material in the book. So even if a chapter is included in the book, the more important question is "Are Cold War questions included in the standardized tests?". See also Teach to the test. Rmhermen (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A little off-topic, but at school in the UK in the 1970s, the Cold War was covered as an ethical issue in our Religious Education lessons. Given the left-leaning political bias of the educational establishment at the time, there was a heavy emphasis on the benefits of unilateral disarmament. In the 1980s this went a step further, with "peace studies" on the timetable at many schools. Apologies for the digression. Alansplodge (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Neighbors ATV racing Noise Unbearable

We live in a rural residential zoned area in Davidsville Pennsylvania. Our neighbors have recently been denied a zoning change they requested which prevented them from surface mining their 400+ acre property (around all of our houses) and now they have decided to "allow" dirt bikes and 4-wheelers to create racing tracks and jumps all over their 400 acre farm. These ATV's and dirt bikes are now constantly racing through their property everyday. The noise is unbearable. There are usually anywhere between 5 and 20 ATV's at one time and they run all day Saturday and Sunday and off and on through out the week. Our peaceful residential neighborhood now sounds like a motocross stadium almost all day every day. I called the police and they said there was no noise ordinance and there was nothing that they could do if the property owner allows them on the property? There has to be something that can be done to stop the constant noise which is making life in our home unbearable and basically uninhabitable. Are there any actions that can be done to prevent this from continuing? Thank you so much for any advice on how I can get our neighborhood back to normal! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.27.60 (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Davidsville, Pennsylvania, is in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, whose website is http://www.co.somerset.pa.us/, which has a page (http://www.co.somerset.pa.us/county.asp?deptnum=99) about the Somerset County Law Library, which is open to the public.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Call a lawyer. We can't help you. Sorry. Shadowjams (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, while we can't offer legal advice, we can offer a bit of political advice... have you considered getting together with your neighbors, and finding out if they are as upset about this as you are? If so, try to form a local advocacy campaign for new zoning laws and noise ordinances. Make enough noise and it will become an issue in local political campaigns next fall. Blueboar (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You can try this resource, but Wikipedia does not endorse it.

• Legal Advice on Noise Complaints | Find, Research, and Rate Attorneys at Avvo.com

—Wavelength (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that passing an anti-noise ordinance is the way to go. If you are unable to do so, I suggest soundproofing one "quiet room", where you can go to relax when your nerves get frazzled. StuRat (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The real problem is that the U.S. has somehow encouraged the notion that noise should be handled at a local level, but of course, at a local level many municipalities are caught up in a whore war to attract businesses by being laxest. Other environmental laws regarding air and water pollution would be no more effective if passed as township ordinances. Legal action, media appeals, and opening an ATV park when your mining application is denied are just a few of the many means of terrorism from which government is generated. Wnt (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree on the need for national noise control laws, as most noise sources are inherently local, and remain a local problem, unlike air and water pollution, which spreads to downriver and downwind areas. And different noise levels are acceptable in a strip mine than in a residential community. An exception would be for mobile noise sources, like airplanes, trains, and motorcycles, where having a different acceptable noise level for each community you pass thru makes little sense. StuRat (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As a first step, I think you should consider registering an account on Wikimedia Commons where you can be contacted and discuss these matters. Use it to upload video (only from your home, or a public place, such as the street, per Commons policy - don't trespass on tape...) so people can see/hear this nightmare for themselves. Illustrations like this will be useful to you in the broader political fight, or for organizing people in your town who live further away. Wnt (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Pocket veto

"A "pocket veto" is where the President of the United States fails to sign a passed bill within ten days, and Congress has adjourned. It is an absolute veto, and cannot be overruled by Congress." This is what i found on the internet and many other sources said something about "the Congress has adjourned". I didn't really understand what is the word "adjourn" mean in this case? Can someone explain to me what exactly is the pocket veto in a different way and the word adjourn? Please explain in simply words enough that any average American could understand. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.13.37 (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

To adjourn a meeting of any kind is to declare it officially over and done. The U.S. Congress does not meet 365 days a year, but instead meets in various "sessions" of some number of weeks or months. So when they declare a given session over, and go home, the President can "pocket" any bills he has received (i.e. put them "in his pocket"), rather than signing them, and they will fail to become law. It's not something that happens frequently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

And I should point out that Congress is free to pass the same bill again when they next convene, or even call an emergency session, if necessary (the President can then veto that, and Congress can then override that). So, the veto is only on that occurrence of the bill, which doesn't mean all that much. Thus, the implication that a bill so vetoed will never become law is not correct. StuRat (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

See also Pocket veto and List of United States presidential vetoes. It seems that 2/5 of all vetoes are pocket ones. Rmhermen (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Stories that "predicted" the destruction of the WTC

Some stories published before 9/11 included a terrorist attack on WTC as a plot element. Two examples I know of are deus ex and The Lone Gunmen. Are there any more such stories? Short stories, novels, TV series, movies, games, any media is fine. I'm not spinning conspiracy theories here, just interested in finding these coincidences. Billions of stories are published every year, so it's not strange that a coincidence like this would occur. Given that WTC were attacked back in 1993, and were also the tallest buildings in NYC, it's not hard to imagine another attack on WTC even before 9/11. 173.32.168.59 (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There was a famous album cover which had to be hastily changed in the days after the attack (see Party Music). Anything published after 1993 would not be too prophetic or greatly coincidental, in my opinion... AnonMoos (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This page lists several things, including another game, that foreshadow the attacks. Stephen King's 1982 novel The Running Man (which is very different from the film they made of it) ends when the protagonist flies a hijacked airliner into a skyscraper (but not the WTC). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 07:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, but I want to focus on the WTC specifically. The more general case of "flying plane into skyscraper" is just another trope.173.32.168.59 (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Would the stories have to predate the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No necessarily. But pre-1993 cases would be more interesting.173.32.168.59 (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

how tall is the Lexington Building (London's exclusive new Flakturm)

It seems the UK's Ministry of Defence is considering using the roof of London's Lexington Building (the former water tower of a match factory) in the Bow Quarter development as a location for missile defences. I can't find, however, how tall that building is - all the Google searches I've tried merely try to sell me titchy flats in it. Can anyone find out? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Just by eyeballing the picture, I would say 9 - 12 normal 10' stories + the 15 - 20' section on top. My bad guess would be 105 to 145' then. One could email/phone and ask the owners, a local museum, government, or even the airport may know.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"2 tall towers of 10 stages" according to British Listed Buildings: Bryant and May Factory. The search continues. Alansplodge (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope - I've drawn a blank, except that a lot of the estate agent's blurb talks of "double height ceilings", Alansplodge (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking - the listing alone is informative (and indeed on closer Google Maps/Streetview inspection, the second tower is visible). Some of the flat listings do show a kind of bedroom mezzanine (so they can pretend they're charging a quarter of a million quid for a one bedroom flat rather than a studio); that shows they've had to wedge odd floor heights in (presumably because of the existing structure of the building) which makes a simple count-and-multiply strategy for estimating particularly unreliable for this weird building. I'm sure it'll get more media coverage if they actually do deploy starstreak on its roof. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the bank of Norway losing money on the destruction of the 50 øre coin?

Norway is currently getting rid of the 50 øre coin. In this opinion piece, [23](in Norwegian), it is mentioned that the coins will be destroyed and sold for scrap by the bank of Norway. The metal content of each coin is estimated at 13 øre. Does this mean that the bank of Norway loses 37 øre (+cost of processing the coin) for each coin? 176.11.18.168 (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Norges Bank is the central bank of Norway. I assume it's authorized to issue new currency corresponding to the destroyed. The new may be larger coins, notes or electronic. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The coin is being withdrawn because people didn't use them [24], but they still had to keep minting them, so no replacement. Mikenorton (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Black population in Europe

I read that France has the largest population of Black people and UK has second largest, so which European nation has third largest and who is after that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.222 (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The information in Black people in Europe is probably as good as you are going to get. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The "regions with significant populations" section of the infobox suggests you're correct about France and the UK. The next four would be Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, and Portugal. Note that the numbers for Italy and Germany are expressed as ranges, so maybe the Netherlands or Germany could be third in this count. It's probably Italy, though. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The figures are pretty meaningless - each country has its own definition, and so there is a lack of consistency. There are many ways of defining whether someone is or is not "black". The article on Black people in Europe has inconsistencies of its own, and provides little clarification. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

to train my dog to walk next to me, can I grab its tail

my dog, basically a puppy, (4 months), insists on all but CHOKING itself trying to run ahead whenever we walk, while panting and making gargling noises from all but choking itself on its collar (which isnt too tight or anything). I don't run ahead, but walk normally and ask the dog to stay. (I have a leash that's long enough for the dog to sniff about within a good radius of me, though it's a traditional shorter leash). Can I just grab the dog's tail whenever it starts leaping ahead (not hard, just so that if it leaps ahead, it finds it's just leaping against its own tail), so that it learns to walk at my pace? If not, how should I train the dog to walk at a nice pace bessides me? Feeding it treats when it happens to be doing it by itself does not work, nor does it ever listen when I try to chide it for trying to leap ahead / compliment it when it slows down: this works for about half a second, and (if its excited) it just keeps trying to leap ahead and choke itself. I don't think this is healthy for it!--188.157.143.195 (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that pulling the dog's tail could injure it or provoke it to bite. What I use with my dog is a harness that goes behind her front legs and in front of her chest. The harness connects to a leash in front, at the chest. This solves the choking problem that you get with a collar. (She wears a collar, but I don't use it for her leash on walks.) It is crucial to use a harness that hooks at the front, rather than at the dog's back. If the harness hooks at the front, you can control the dog's direction and movement much better; you pull the dog. If the harness hooks at the back, the dog pulls you. With a front-hooking harness, you can control the dog's action. The thing to do is, whenever the dog gets ahead of you, force it to stop. Don't let it start going until you say so. If it gets ahead of you, stop the dog again. Wait a few seconds, then try again. If the dog stays at your side, keep going. The dog will gradually learn that if it wants a satisfying walk without lots of forced halts, it will need to stay at your side. Marco polo (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The command "Heel!" is well covered in any book on training your dog and in on-line videos. Your dog is waiting for clear direction from you, the Alpha-Dog.--Wetman (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree that you need to show the dog that you are alpha, and verbal commands such as "heel" can be useful. I thought I would add , though, most dogs have a natural walking pace that is faster than many humans are used to walking. However, most humans are capable of walking at a pace that is comfortable to dogs if humans walk briskly. I have chosen to walk briskly with my dog, partly to make the walk more satisfying and better exercise for her, but also because a brisk walk is better exercise for me! If you are capable of walking fast and want to give it a try, you and your dog might have a quicker and easier time finding a rhythm that you both like. That said, if you can't or don't want to walk fast, you can of course insist that the dog slow down for you. Marco polo (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like your dog has you well trained. :-) StuRat (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

In addition to what's already been said, I'd also recommend having a treat pouch or pocket full of treats and dole them out as you walk with the dog at your side. The dog, if a food motivated dog, will want to stay by your side for the treats. If it's a tall enough dog, this is fairly easy to accomplish while walking. Also, it would help if you worked on other commands and exercises. Does your dog know how to sit, stay, lay down, or come when called? This will reinforce the idea that they want to be near you (possibly for treats). If you're concerned about your dog filling up on treats, one option is Lickety Stiks. (I don't work for the company and one of my dogs doesn't care for these) Another option is Charlee Bears which is a low cal treat. (Again, don't work for the company but my dogs love these) Dismas|^(talk) 20:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You might also reduce their regular meals, both so they won't get fat and so they will do more to get treats. StuRat (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that pulling the dog's tail is a bad idea. If nothing else works, you might escalate with a shock collar, and give it a zap whenever it leaves your side. Some people think of these as cruel, but the alternative might be a dog that will run into the street (possibly dragging you with it) and get hit by a car. StuRat (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a completely ignorant statement to propose that the two options are shocking the dog or them running into the street. There are completely pain-free training methods that are extremely well known and much, much more effective than causing your dog pain on a routine basis. Training requires work, and sometimes expert consultation, but pain should play an almost minimal role in it if you want a psychologically healthy dog. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

ALA accredited schools

While checking for the ALA (American Library Association) accredited schools near me, I stumbled across this map http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=105865627555958965474.000449740ea1f057a8b91&ll=41.508577,-93.515625&spn=89.94393,163.125&z=3

I'm completely mystified as to how to explain Hawaii having seven such schools when other much more populous states having one, two or even none at all! Is there a explanation or is this just some bizarre oddity?66.30.10.71 (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe this is some sort of error. I searched for ALA-accredited schools in Hawaii on the ALA site, and the only result was the University of Hawaii. However, all seven locations marked on that map seem to be campuses in the University of Hawaii system. The map is a nice visualization, but if you're considering library school, I'd recommend this official PDF instead. Good luck out there! It's not an easy job market for librarians. --BDD (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, specifically, the error seems to be that each campus of the University of Hawaii is listed as if it were a separate university. StuRat (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks so much--I see that you're right! Consider this question RESOLVED!! ...also, ugh, I know. Fortunately I plan to be poor for a long time, so it'll all work out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.10.71 (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Inflation or already deflation?

Why isn't the inflation negative? I know that different goods, at different proportions, go into the price index's basket, but wouldn't it be obvious to include real estate, which price is falling, as a big share of the basket? That would result in a negative inflation, at least for me, little poor tenant (or lucky tenant). XPPaul (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC).

Do you mean deflation? I'm guessing that the price index measures things that are often bought by average people; even most rich people don't buy real estate very often. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but lots of people pay rent every month. XPPaul (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Rent and real estate are vastly different things. Per the article you linked, price indices measure the costs of goods and services, and rent is neither one. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

How does it come that renting is not a service? XPPaul (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A service is something that someone does for you. When you rent your apartment, you're paying for the right to use the property yourself. Things such as building maintenance are paid with the rent, but that doesn't make the rent a service. It's like when you buy goods at Wal-Mart such as food or tissues; you're paying for the service of them transporting the goods from distant places to your local store, but your purchase is primarily that of the goods. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So, rent-a-car companies are not service companies? XPPaul (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

What inflation is really supposed to measure is changes in the value of money. It isn't obvious to me that including real estate in the gauge is the best way to do that. Looie496 (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it include all things that you need? XPPaul (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)