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

August 1

Why Did the U.S. Make it Much Harder for Soviet Jews to Move Here in 1990?

Was it due to Israeli pressure, or was Israeli pressure a secondary factor, with the main factor being a viewpoint that since the U.S.S.R. is no longer than same country that it once was, there's no need to unconditionally accept Soviet refugees? Futurist110 (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you're talking about here in regards to limiting immigration, Israeli pressure, etc - claims like these really need refs so others can understand. And generally, if you have a ref that discusses this, then it should be able to answer your question, which makes editors think that you can't back this statement up and not to take it for 100%.

Also, the questions you posed here may be more suited towards another forum. I don't know how many editors will be able to answer questions like these or some of the others you gave.

(just trying to help out, not trying to be harsh) --Activism1234 01:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's an article explaining what I'm talking about--Aliyah#Aliyah_from_the_Soviet_Union_and_post-Soviet_states. Futurist110 (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Right. And now where did you get it that the U.S. made it harder? --Activism1234 01:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:DbK0BEeWmO4J:yivoinstitute.org/downloads/america.pdf+u.s.+limit+jewish+immgration+1990&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShVohkZ-oTJYx17sOse0EDGjsSNXvLrkDMOcRGlQaxBrZWcp0PDe9787ktGh5w2ZWrMy1DCFL3ITuRPpyySH18sY4Gd_ZkEwM01NbU1MVimZPSV3b3Owu-uEx8HyZYiA1kClVQ8&sig=AHIEtbR0hMC6ul6r_FOtxTB3Og2tJSh_5w

Page 12 here. I'm wondering if there are other articles talking about the causes in more detail, though. Futurist110 (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The article mentions two factors.

1. "given U.S. commitments to provide a haven to various other groups, many of which lacked the substantial remedies and resources available to Russia’s Jews." Very tough to absorb all of these different groups, overwhelming numbers.
2. The wave of immigration would be much much larger than before, which makes it tougher to handle, and also complete assimilation levels were high for those who came to America and they may have wanted to avoid that. The population #s wouldn't impact America's population percentage too much, but it certainly would boost Israel's (and the original goal anyway was to immigrate to Israel, not America). --Activism1234 01:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that explanation but I was wondering how large of a role the Israel lobby played in this decision. After all, the U.S. allows 1 million or so people to immigrate here each year right now, so a million Soviet Jews wouldn't have really been too much for us to handle. Futurist110 (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Young Philsophers

Except from child prodigies who are some philosophers who started becoming philosophers at their 20's or in other words at at their teenage years? I am greatly curious for it is often seen that Philosophers are those aged 40 and up and sometimes older. There are some yet not often discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.194.241.178 (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Come on. This reached absurdity several posts ago, and now it's way beyond. I hereby give notice that I am going to remove any further posts along this line. Looie496 (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest the OP finds an internet forum that deals with philosophy via a google search so he can ask his questions there. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Better the OP should listen to the OLD philosopher. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

OP's question is not ridiculous though. The usual historical example of a prodigy, a young philosopher is Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling. Today (rather, some decades ago) we have Saul Kripke. And from Zeno of Elea we see that Plato's Parmenides takes place when at a time when Parmenides is "about 65," Zeno is "nearly 40" and Socrates is "a very young man". So both Zeno & even more Socrates are examples of young philosophers.John Z (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell published The Principles of Mathematics when he was 31. Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus was completed before he was 30 and published when he was 32. These are among the most important works of 20th-century philosophy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Friedrich Nietzsche: "In 1869, at the age of 24 he was appointed to the Chair of Classical Philology at the University of Basel...", and he had already published numerous philosophical works. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

David Hume published A Treatise of Human Nature before he turned 30. --Xuxl (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Calvin and Hobbes are young philosophers. StuRat (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Eric Hoffer , the self-proclaimed "longshoreman philosopher" is an example of a famous self-taught "philosopher" who read a lot, thought a lot, and then wrote a lot, without any degree in "philosophy." (I'm reminded of the joke of the boy who cheated on a philosophy exam by gazing into the soul of the boy sitting next to him). Edison (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Saul Kripke was a famously precocious philosopher (his first publication was at age 17, according to his WP biography). Harvey Friedman was assistant professor of philosophy at Stanford at age 18 though I think most people consider him a mathematician rather than a philosopher (he has also apparently been a professor of music). If you mean e.g. social philosophers, Pekka Himanen was pretty young when his first book came out. 67.117.146.199 (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Mandatory gun ownership

Is/was there a local law in one of the southern states that each household had to have at least one firearm? I had thought it was in Texas, but I am doubting that now. See Gun laws in the United States (by state). It may not be listed in state law as I think it was a county by-law.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought Switzerland had such a law, at some point, so they could raise a militia if attacked, since they lack a large standing army. StuRat (talk) 05:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

In Switzerland, all males who are fit for service are required to complete basic training and keep and maintain a military issue rifle and a certain amount of ammunition in sealed packets in their home. See Gun politics in Switzerland. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law

Resolved

--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not a state or even a county, it's the town of Kennesaw, Georgia -- see the Gun law section of the article. Looie496 (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

How is that constitutional? --108.206.7.65 (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Because there's no right not to bear arms in the Constitution. They do have a clause exempting objectors, otherwise Quakers could argue it violates their religion. StuRat (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's basically a nonlaw. It says you must have a gun unless you don't want to. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Depending on what is required to become an objector. The draft had an exclusion for objectors, but you had to prove that you had a religious or moral objection. StuRat (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Neutrality^talk 04:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This article, [1], points out that Greenleaf, Idaho recently passed a similar law, based on the one in Kennesaw. It also points out that the law in Kennesaw has never actually been enforced, that about 80% of the people there already owned guns, and that the law probably did not result in much of a change in gun ownership there. Also, apparently Kennesaw passed its law as a kind of protest about Morton Grove, Illinois passing a ban on handguns. Make of that what you will. Pfly (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those kinds of laws are passed strictly as political statements. If you compel someone to buy a gun, or any other object for that matter, you're basically imposing a tax. And the catch-22 with a law like this is that for proper enforcement you would have to provide written proof that you own a gun - in short, you would have to register the gun, which is something pro-gun people oppose. So it's nothing more than grandstanding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a very sweeping statement - people that support the ownership of guns by the public have a wide range of opinions on exactly how it should work. I'm sure plenty are in favour of registration. --Tango (talk)

Good luck finding any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

In colonial times there were many such laws as well. With mandatory militia training usually on Sundays when everyone came into town for church.[2] Rmhermen (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The English "Assize of arms" of 1181 required every "able bodied freeman" to provide himself with a weapon and to report for training periodically. The English were required by a law of "Hue and cry" in 1285 to have a weapon and to pursue criminals. A wealthy landowner might be required to have a horse, armor and knightly weapons. A poor man was expected to have a knife or club. All were required to take up the chase through town and country, from county to county until a malefactor was captured, or pay a penalty. Rewards for catching a felon were established. Men in town could be compelled to be night watchmen. Men in colonial America were required to be part of the militia, and to muster with a serviceable firearm, to defend against insurrection (how did that work out?), or attack by brigands, native Americans, or foreign powers. This specific law was apparently repealed under George IV, but this was long after US independence. Thus it seems consistent with the British legal heritage of the American colonies that there could be a law requiring citizens to own weapons, especially with exceptions for religious reasons, if the Constitution or state or federal laws did not forbid such a requirement. Edison (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The history of colonial militias in America, the right or even requirement to have a firearm, and the right to serve in the militia, was not always a simple thing. A key term mentioned above is "freemen"—in colonial America a great many people were not free. In early colonial Virginia, for example. In 1620 Virginia had a "universal militia"—all men were subject to being mustered, indentured servants, white and black men alike (slavery did not really replace indentured servitude until a bit later). Masters of indentured servants were required to arm their servants if they were called up in the militia (servants were generally too poor to own a gun). By the late 17th century the militia laws had changed so that only free white men could be called for militia duty. The gentry had come to mistrust the poorer servant classes, white and black alike. The gentry feared that the lower class might rebel (and there were servant rebellions and conspiracies to rebel in the 1660s) and did not want to see the servant class armed. The militia laws of the late 17th century required free white men to own firearms, for use in militia duty. The servant class was not usually, as far as I know, forbidden to own firearms, although most did not as they could not afford it. As this book puts it, [3], the gentry considered the servant class hard enough to control unarmed, "and that if they were armed and permitted to attend [militia] musters, they might be tempted to obtain their freedom by slaying their masters." In 1676 Bacon's Rebellion changed the situation radically. This rebellion was at least in part an uprising of poor folk, servants, and slaves against the gentry. Poor white indentured servants and black slaves joined together in an attempt to overthrow the ruling class ([4]). During the early stages of the conflict the gentry tried to impose gun control ([5]), which only enraged the common folk more. The rebellion failed, but in the aftermath, and after lengthy debate, the right to bear arms was extended to basically all white men, servant or not. After 1705 masters were required to give a musket to servants who had finished their term, as part of a "freedom due"—although servants were still not allowed to be mustered into the militia in, eg, Virginia, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, during the 18th century ([6]). Various historians have argued that Bacon's Rebellion was a kind of precursor to the American Revolution and that there is a very direct link with right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights. However, another aspect of the aftermath of Bacon's Rebellion was an extreme reduction in the rights of blacks, especially black slaves. Blacks were deprived of the right to bear arms, to vote, and so on. Before long slavery was made hereditary. In short by granting rights to poor and indentured whites and taking rights away from blacks, the gentry was able to drive a wedge between the two so they would not join together as they had in Bacon's Rebellion ([7]). After the American Revolution indentured servitude was eliminated, leaving all white men with the right to bear arms and be mustered into militias, but no such rights for black slaves or, for the most part, free blacks. Our article on Bacon's Rebellion is short and only touches on the complexity of it, which is too bad because it was a very significant event in early colonial America, but most people, most Americans have not even heard of it. There are interesting connections between Bacon's Rebellion and the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, both of which, if I understand right, involved issues of the right and/or requirement to bear arms and serve in militias. There are also links with the New Model Army. Pfly (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

French Polynesian royal stamps

Does anybody know when these stamps of the Pomare Kings and Queens of Tahiti, King Tamatoa V of Raiatea, and King Maputeoa of Mangareva created? Were they comtemporary or commerative? What postage stamps were used during the monarchy periods of these kingdoms?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The first group of stamps you link to were issued in 1976 according to various collector sites (see here for example [8]). The other links you have bring me to generic "Colonies françaises" stamps which have no particular Polynesian design, so I,'m not sure I understand the question. As for the second question, this page [9] claims that postal service in Tahiti only began in 1859 under the French protectorate, and that before that it was a real hassle getting any mail to Tahiti... So, no stamps pre-dating the French period exist, and stamps from the protectorate period, beginning in 1862, were simply generic French colonial stamps locally overstamped with the word "Tahiti". --Xuxl (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I would consult the appropriate volume of Scott's Postage Stamp Catalogue (either 1 or 2) for further information. From my own knowledge of philately, I know most French colonies, well into the 20th century used somewhat generic designs, often with overprints or else with space for the printing of the name of the colony. This was probably to spare the time of the engravers in Paris.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Polynesian Pele

Are there other Polynesian counterparts of the Hawaiian goddess Pele? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the Pocket Hawaiian-English Dictionary (ISBN 0-8248-0307-8), the basic meaning of the word pele is "lava flow, volcano, eruption". Did any non-Hawaiian Polynesian islands have active volcanos? -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Maoris are polynesian. There are active volcanoes in New Zealand. 101.172.42.144 (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There is Rūaumoko but from the description of Pele in our article, I don't think he's really a perfect counterpart. See also [10] [11] [12] [13] Nil Einne (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

See list of volcanoes in Tonga and list of volcanoes in French Polynesia. 101.172.42.144 (talk) 09:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism lawsuit

According to Deepak Chopra, he was sued by Robert Sapolsky for plagiarism. But according to Plagiarism, that term does not exist in a legal sense. The source actually talks about "a lawsuit over plagiarism". So, what happened here? Was he sued in a jurisdiction where they do recognise plagiarism as a legal term, or was this actually a copyright infringment suit, or was it something else entirely? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The word plagiarism may have been thrown around, but the official claim was copyright infringement, as you suspected. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe the difference is that it's perfectly legal to plagiarize whatever you want, as long as it's not copyrighted. StuRat (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is now fixed with the ref you provided too. Thanks, again. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether it's still copyrighted or not, claiming someone else's work as your own could get you in trouble. For example, I can post a pre-1923 photograph here because it's "free", but I still have to indicate the source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

do you mean in an "academic policy" / "wikipedia policy" / "public relations" sense, or do you mean legally? I'm puzzled what kind of legal trouble you are alluding to. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly under academic policy. When Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg's Ph.D. dissertation was found to be full of plagiarism, the media in Germany kept implying the problem was simply that he hadn't acknowledged the sources of the information - that he hadn't "used enough footnotes". But in fact, that wouldn't have been enough. A dissertation is supposed to be a work of original research, and if all of the ideas in it are other peoples' ideas, it isn't an acceptable dissertation, no matter how diligently it cites it sources. It may not be a copyright violation putting you in legal trouble, but you'll certainly be denied the degree (if they find out ahead of time) or revoke the degree (if they find out afterwards, as happened to Guttenberg). Pais (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm amazed how the doctoral advisor didn't find it, since Guttenberg was even plagiarizing him. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole thing was a huge embarrassment for everyone involved, for lots of different reasons. Pais (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

But Baseball Bugs mentioned uploading a public-domain photo to Wikipedia pretending it's your own. So my example of "academic policy" was obviously a joke, as Wikipedia is not such an institution. where is the legal trouble here? 84.3.160.86 (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Bugs just said 'trouble', as in possible sanctions for knowingly plagiarising (see WP:Plagiarism for why that's a problem here). Mikenorton (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Here, for sure. In academia, very likely. Legally? I couldn't say. But I'm reminded of this line from a Tom Lehrer song: "Plagiarize! Let no one else's work evade your eyes! Remember why the good Lord made your eyes! So don't shade your eyes! Plagiarize! Plagiarize! Plagiarize! ... Only be sure to always call it, please... Research!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Bugs might be thinking of Moral rights (copyright law) as well? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Olympia

Why weren't the First Olympic Games held at Olympia, the site of the original games? There is a modern town there. Has there been talk of that being a site for any future Olympic Games or can only cities bid for who host the games?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Athens in 2004 had the men's and women's shotput at the ancient stadium of Olympia. But even Athens had inadequate public facilities and infrastructure for whole modern games. 12:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd guess that in 1896, it was the cost of overcoming nature for the needs of a modern Olympics: "The area is hilly and mountainous; most of the area within Olympia is forested." says our article Olympia, Greece. By 2004, you could probably add ecological and archaeological concerns. --Dweller (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been to Olympia. It is the hell and gone in Greece. The town is rather small and mostly geared to the needs of tourists. I stayed at the Best Western, which is about two miles from town, mostly uphill. While the 1896 Olympics were not as large as those today, it would have been most impractical to hold it in Olympia. Today it would not be possible, s the necessary construction would damage protected sites, and the legacy situation would be far worse than in Athens.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It is the hell and gone in Greece. - Wehwalt, I thought this expression might have been some play on Hellene/Hellenic, but that was off the mark. Then I discovered a movie of this name they were making in 2010 about the Great Chicago Fire, but that project seems to have gone cold. I finally tracked it down in Urban Dictionary. (So little learned, so much still to learn. And that's just my so-called own language!) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

what is a "televised play"?

if you search for it you just get one wikipedia article about a 2000 remake of a sixties film - is it because they didn't have the rights to remake that film, so they decided for the 2000 version Oh No This is a "Televised Play"? Or does the term actually mean something? 84.3.160.86 (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

See Teleplay; a one-off drama not produced for the stage or cinema, and which therefore needed a new name. In the early days of television they were very much "plays", telecast live and not recorded, but the term survived for a while even after they became more like the Made for TV movies which succeeded them. Fail Safe, which is the article you're referring to, was a deliberate attempt to recreate the atmosphere of a 1950s TV play by using the same techniques they used in the 1950s; it was shot in black and white, in a single take, and originally broadcast live. FiggyBee (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The original TV version of Casino Royale was one, as was the BBC version of 1984. 1950s TV viewers were very familiar with them... AnonMoos (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

how do I get in touch with a good opera critic as opposed to a voice coach

I don't believe in modern voice coaches, because they do not produce opera singers capable of the singing that opera singers several decades earlier used to be capable of, and which I am trying to study. So I would like to find just a critic, someone with a good appreciation for classical opera, to give me feedback regarding my development. they wouldn't have a vestd interest in "teaching" someone even in the absence of techniques to do so. any ideas how I can do this? Also, I don't believe naive untrained singing is the best, obviously - so that I would not be above contacting a conservatory director. I just don't want a voice coach. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You are unhappy because the available teachers don't know enough about technique, so you are going to solve the problem by finding a teacher who doesn't know anything at all about technique? Looie496 (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear: I am seeking a critic rather than a teacher. This would be if, as a chef who thought he reinvented ancient techniques of court cooking that were lost with the revolutions, did not try to go to a culinary school or take part in chef's training: however, instead, he tried to find some good food critics and gourmands to "practice on." The unstated hypothesis is that if you can produce good results, it doesn't matter if you are "self-taught", and the second unstated hypothesis is that an opera critic (or the food critic) can judge whether the results are any good. Alternatively, I do believe I could contact persons at these schools who would be good critics (e.g. conductors, to name one) without them being voice teachers. What do you think is my best bet? I contacted someone from here at the refernece desk who showed good knowledge of opera, but he declined to critique my practice in operatic terms, citing the fact that he was not a voice teacher. This was disappointing to me, as I still would have valued his critical opinion. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It won't work. It would be like trying to learn a language from a critic who can only tell you whether what you said was good or bad. The problem is that there are far more ways of doing something wrong than of doing it right, so merely knowing that you got it wrong is not informative enough. You need positive instruction on technique for teaching to have any value. Looie496 (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually this is a perfect analogy. I don't learn languages from "language teachers" but from the living language: and my standard is, in fact, the "native speaker", who can in fact tell "whether what you said was good or bad." So whilst learning following my own curriculum, which includes authentic culture, film, books, a few grammar books but for the most part organic learning, the end result is, in fact, judged by whether I can hold conversations and and write perfectly: as jusdged by educated native speakers. This actually beats the hell out of a "language teacher", as evidenced by the fact that I've learned German, French, ad Italian to a very high level, passing the countries' own exams for foreigners, in these languages. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to out myself as the person you contacted privately. Let me put it this way. If you played me a song or aria sung by Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, and then exactly the same piece sung by almost anyone else, and asked me to say which was the better singing, chances are I’d say the other guy. Now, that may surprise you, but we all have our likes and dislikes, our biases and our prejudices. A professional teacher would be able to point out exactly what Fischer-Dieskau did that made him the darling of the critics and the record-buying public for over 60 years, and what an aspiring singer could usefully copy from his technique. Me, I was never convinced about his voice, and probably never will be. To me, it has always sounded forced and amateurish. If his career had been in my hands as a critic, it would never have got off the ground and nobody would ever have heard of him. I would say the same thing about Andrea Bocelli. Some say Maria Callas was a goddess incarnate, others say she shrieked like a cat in heat. Who was right? To me, she was both: at her best, unmatchable; but at her worst, almost intolerable. One would have had to hear her on a number of occasions to get a true perspective on her abilities. You owe it to yourself to not let your singing future be controlled by the opinions of people who might get to hear you only once and whose only known asset is their opinions – and most particularly not anonymous people on the internet, about whose training or personal circumstances you know nothing. I also don't understand your reluctance to be involved with a teacher. If you wanted to learn to ski, to fly a plane, to do nuclear physics or perform brain surgery, you'd get a teacher. Your voice is just as precious as any of those things, and deserves to be trained in a way that has the support of centuries of tradition. All good singers have natural gifts; a teacher can do little with someone who doesn't have a good god-given foundation. But all naturally good singers who ever amounted to anything had good teachers to help them turn their rough nuggets into gleaming diamonds. No critic can ever do that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Jack, you go to extreme lengths here. I would say 87-93% of what you've written is hedging to reduce the weight of your opinion. Nevertheless, the opinion does seem to shine through, though I could be misinterpreting. Were you able to listen to my practice? If so, this is the "before" of conservatory practice (in that it is, obviously, not a product). Like all self-motivated programs, tracking progress - and making it - is extremely important. So, if you will confirm that the above is written after having, in fact, heard the practice, I will be very grateful. This does not mean I will NOT follow your advice. Incidentally I'm particulary glad you mentioned both of your examples (Andrea Bocelli, Callas). The former is explicitly an example of the fact that the tradition has died out: he can't sing. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No, your link was inaccessible, but my position does not rely on having heard your voice. Maybe I know a little more than your average Joe about singing and opera and all that jazz, but that doesn't make me any more suitable as a mentor than an experienced and qualified voice teacher. If you're embarking on a major road trip, you have your car checked out by a qualified and licenced auto mechanic, not by some anonymous stranger who appears to know a few odd facts about cars. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

But when you told me that, I included it as an attachment by email instead! Didn't you get it? again, it's just a bit of practice though. just sent it again. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Secondly this "Maybe I know a little more than your average Joe about singing and opera and all that jazz" sounds fine to me! You don't have to mentor me, just an opinion is fine. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not hard to get in touch with an opera critic: try writing to one. You don't say where in the world you are, but you could check quality newspapers near you to see if they have an opera critic, and contact them. For example, Anthony Tommasini writes regularly about opera for the New York Times, and you can email him from this page. Rupert Christiansen is the (London) Daily Telegraph's opera critic[14] and the paper's contact information is here. I've no idea how they will respond to your request. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Trying to read between the lines, I am wondering if the OP is saying that he does not want a voice coach to train him to sing like somebody else that the couch admires but to assist him to develop his own style. After all, opera was not invented by the teachers but by the countless individual singers that did it -their way – and the voice coaches learnt from 'them'. The difference is: that some will lead but others will follow. The OP -I think- is saying that he doesn’t want to follow but to lead and originate, and so lift opera to still a higher level. Yet, he recognises he needs someone as a sounding-board whom can advise him as to what works and what does not.--Aspro (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

*Grammar police sirens* That ought to be "who can advise him". I'll let you off this time with a warning :P 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that last part sounds quite egotistical almost to the point of megalomania. I would prefer not to ever say anything like that, and instead simply go through a circuitous route that does not include the traditional training, except as an afterthought once I am done with the bulk of preparation by myself. (As, in the analogy, as an afterthought of course I do read a traditional grammar textbook on a language to see if there is anything I missed organically: since, I'm not a child in an environment in that language, don't have parents correcting me, nor teachers for at least 12 years of primary and secondary school, nor 8 hours a day of media and culture. So, yeah, I do need to finish with a traditional language learning / voice learning program. But that is not the source of my development.) --80.99.254.208 (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It sounds to me that you'd be as well getting hold of something sung by Mario Lanza (or his hero, Enrico Caruso but that's harder to come by) and a tape recorder: sing an aria yourself and tape it, then listen to Lanza's version and see if you can work out what the differences are. By the way, Andrea Bocelli isn't an operatic tenor, in the same way that Jose Carreras isn't an operatic tenor. I wonder if you're comparing apples with pears here: there are popular tenors like Bocelli, and there are operatic tenors like Pavarotti. Maybe you need to immerse yourself in recordings by the greats and see if you can emulate them? All a "critic" will do is tell you where you're going wrong, which can be soul-destroying. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you sing? Can I hear you somewhere? (I can contact you by email via your talk page if necessary for privacy.) --80.99.254.208 (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

(just picked myself up after ROFL!) Yes I sing but the only place you'll hear me is in my lounge! I was trained as an opera singer, as was my grandmother, but after passing my music A level many years ago I haven't sung in public since. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if I'll be in your lounge anytime soon, so I guess I will miss out for now. Regarding my original question, do you have a critical apprecition for old-style opera music? If so I may just contact you for an opinion. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A lot depends on what you call "old-style". I know what I like, and my tastes include Bocelli and Carreras as well as Tito Gobbi, Caruso and Elizabeth Schwarzkopf. I don't think I could advise you without knowing your definitions. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Tammy, every last note ever recorded by Caruso was released on digitally remastered CD (many CDs) some years ago. It's all very available. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope you (OP) are aware that if you succeed in learning to sing the way opera singers did several decades ago rather than the way they sing nowadays, you will never get a job as an opera singer. The reason singers sing the way they do nowadays is that it's what's currently fashionable. If you go to auditions sounding like an opera singer from the 1940s or '50s, the people in charge of hiring singers will, at best, smile politely and thank you for your time, and you'll never hear from them again. On the other hand, if your goal is just to sing as an amateur, for the sheer joy of it, that's great. Pais (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, my goal is just to be better. I think good singing on some level speaks for itself and transcends fashions. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I've now listened to your sample and I am more than ever convinced you must go to a voice coach/teacher. I've sent you an email with my detailed feedback. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Bad Fiction

What is the Title of the book written by multiple popular authors in the 1960s or 70s as an example of bad fiction that became a bestseller? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.143.59 (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Atlanta Nights was written in 2004 but otherwise fits the description. Not sure about a 60s/70s-era novel, but I'll look into it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're referring to Naked Came the Stranger. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"As long as there are slaughter houses there will always be battlefields"

Hello, where did this Leo Tolstoy quote come from? At least it is considered a Tolstoy quote, but i can't find it in his complete works. Is this from an article? I know that he visited a slaughter house in 1892 (or 1893?) and it's likely that he said this sentence, but i can't find it. --KaterBegemot (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

We had a similar question in 2011, see archived question, with some possibilities, but no exactly congruent quote could be found. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hitler was a vegetarian, but that didn't stop him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually it's not clear that he was a (total) vegetarian. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually my intention was not to start an ethical discussion but to find the quote's source. Thanks anyway Sluzzelin! Maybe he said this in the 1893 article "Count Tolsoi on the Slaughter-House". It's listed on the IVU website but is unfortunately not available. --KaterBegemot (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2

Olympic Tie

What is the procedure for determining a winner in an Olympic tie? In regards to this, I had two "Olympic ties" in mind:

1. A tie for selecting the host city of a future Olympics (ex. instead of having Sydney win 45-43 over Beijing for the 2000 Olympics, the vote ends up 44-44). 2. A tie in an Olympic competition (ex. instead of having Michael Phelps beat Milorad Cavic by 1/100th of a second in 2008, have their swimming times be exactly even (50:58 vs. 50:58).

Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

For the second example, both contestants usually receive the medal in these cases. In swimming, for instance, this happened during Swimming at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 metre freestyle where Anthony Ervin and Gary Hall, Jr. both swam the distance in 21.98 seconds and tied for gold (while the person with the second best time, Pieter van den Hoogenband in 22.03 seconds, consequently only received bronze, instead of silver. Silver wasn't awarded for this discipline at all that year). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. What about a tie for determining the host city of a future Olympics? Futurist110 (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find any clause for this event (see "Host City Election - Fact and Figures", for example, "If only two cities remain in contention, the one that obtains the greatest number of votes is declared elected"). Maybe they just keep voting until someone switches or abstains. So far it doesn't seem to have happened (see "Past Olympic Host Cities Election Results"). ---Sluzzelin talk 03:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A quote from the IOC's 2018 Host City Factsheet reads that "if after the first round of voting, no city obtains the absolute majority of the votes cast, as many rounds are held as necessary for a city to obtain such majority." So if two cities remain in contention, and they still end up in a tie, I'd assume the IOC members would still keep on voting. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If the tie comes in a swimming heat and requires breaking to determine which swimmer qualifies for the next round (e.g. if there's a tie between 8th and 9th place and 8 places in the semi-final available) there will be a swim-off - the tied swimmers swim again with the fastest taking the qualifying place. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What if there's a swim-off tie? Another swim-off? Futurist110 (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they keep swimming until one drowns out of sheer exhaustion... --Xuxl (talk) 08:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

And in the synchronised swimming, if one has a heart attack and dies in the pool, all the others have to follow suit. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Or swimsuit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The Phelps analogy applies to swimming, but there is an entirely different way of deciding ties in other events. Just one example, fencing plays off for bronze. Gymnastics throws out the lowest score of each gymnast then re-calculates. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean by your fencing example. Do you mean that in fencing, as in many other sports at the olympics and elsewhere (e.g. most world cups), they let the losing semifinalists compete to determine who get's the bronze medal rather then awarding two)? I guess you're correct this is nominally a form of tiebreak (of course so is the gold medal match), which some sports also use for high places usually when it's important for other reasons. (Note some sports which do normally award two bronze medal system use a repechage system to determine which 2, effectively a more complicated way of 'tiebreaking' for the bronze medal. The form of repechage used, usually where anyone who lost to a gold medal match competitor has a chance to compete for the bronze under the assumption one of them must be 2nd or 3rd best, but by nature that means it can only begin once it's determined who will be in the gold medal match. Therefore I think it's considered it will take too long particularly if you want to be fair to the atheletes i.e. give them time to recuperate, to get the last two to compete for the bronze.)

However it doesn't sound like what the OP is referring to since they seem to be referring to tiebreakers required when there is an unexpected tie during normal competition (i.e. it shouldn't always and arguably usually be required). The bronze medal playoff is a normal part of play which is always required baring some unusual occurence like a disqualification or injury leading to a walkover. The tiebreaker used in fencing (or is it only epee?), as perhaps made famous by one of the female epee semifinals, is a form of sudden death but with random preference. One fencer is randomly assigned preference and if they can survive one minute without getting a (sole) point scored against them, they win. The other fencer has to score a sole point before the end of the minute. Sudden death with extra time is fairly common in sports with two team or inviduals competing for points, although usually without preference. Some other sports like badminton where a winning margin of 2 points is normally required eventually allow a one point margin, effectively a sudden death (at least when you can score without service). Boxing goes to countbacks if the boxers are on equal points, then if that still leaves it unresolved the 5 judges push a button for who they think won the match. Archery have a one arrow shootoff where the closest arrow wins.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

What are the Closest Olympic Race Wins Ever?

Besides Michael Phelps's 1/100th second win over Milorad Cavic in 2008? Futurist110 (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I gave one example for your question immediately above this one, where the difference was 0, as close as it gets at the Olympics. There might well be other examples, but a quick search only revealed athletes who tied for gold in gymnastics and pole vault. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

When did the ties for gymnastics and pole vault occur and who were the competitors? Futurist110 (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Gymnastics at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Women's balance beam (athletes: Simona Păucă and Ecaterina Szabo)
• Athletics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's pole vault (athletes: Edward Cook and Alfred Carlton Gilbert).
• There's an example of a tiebreaker in gymnastics too though: Gymnastics at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's uneven bars which was won by He Kexin who had originally finished with the same score as Nastia Liukin (the article explains the tiebreaker procedure). ---Sluzzelin talk 02:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. :) Futurist110 (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes, when the same time is recorded for two or more competitors, a photo finish decides the race. Examples include the men's 100 metres in 1948 (the first time it was used in Olympic history), women's road race cycling in 2000 (where it was used for the top three), Men's cross-country sprint in 2010 (Both Alexander Panzhinskiy and Nikita Kriukov were clocked at 3:36.3, but Kriukov won the photo finish). Gail Devers won gold at the 100 metres event in 1992 thanks to a photo finish analysis, though her time is also given as 1/100th of a second faster than Juliet Cuthbert's. I'm sure there are more examples. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, the equipment at Olympic standard swimming pools is actually capable of recording margins as small as 1/1000 of a second (which makes a draw pretty unlikely), but official results never show a margin less than 1/100 of a second. This presumably means that actual results are rounded out to the 1/100 figures that give the required official result. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Tonight was the men's 50 meter freestyle semifinals. During the broadcast, they recapped the 2000 results when there was a dead heat for the finish: Two golds and a bronze were awarded. So, as recently as 12 years ago there was a swimming tie, which would be a closer finish than anything else mentioned. --Jayron32 03:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Jesus in Roman records.

I believe the Romans were good record keepers. I am wondering if there is any written records that make any reference to Jesus Christ while he was living? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.58.13.82 (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in Historicity of Jesus. But the answer appears to be no, at least so far as surviving records go. Scholars have intensively searched for any such records since the 18th century, but nothing was found from Jesus' lifetime. Roman historians have mentioned Jesus, but only after the New Testament was written. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah basically if there even were any records from Jesus's lifetime they were either destroyed or not found yet. Futurist110 (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you imagine that there is some shelf with thousands of scrolls of vital statistics and census records from Roman times, documenting the lives of all residents of the Empire, carefully preserved over the millenia, and viewable at some archive? Have you heard of the fires in Rome, and the sacks of Rome? If there is data on someone from ancient Rome, they were likely a high government official, with a few inscriptions or statues or monuments remaining, or later civilizations preserved the writings of a very few leaders, philosophers, etc,. Even the early Popes, or governors such as Pontius Pilate have few solid documents (not counting pious fabrications). The routine administrative records relating to the average Roman subject were burned or rotted or were eaten by bugs. An occasional scrap of parchment got accidentally preserved in a bog or something, but very few first century Roman subjects have anything resembling modern vital statistics records remaining. Edison (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, but to understand how that applies, the OP needs to know that Jesus was "nothing special" at the time. That is, there were many comparable religious profits prophets at the time (John the Baptist was one), and only in the centuries after the death of Jesus did he grow to his current status. StuRat (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Is that why they've had associations with banks ever since? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

He was often observed at the banks of the Jordan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

In the case of John the Baptist, Christianity and Islam have agreed to profit sharing. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If I started a religion where nobody claims to know the will of God, would it qualify as a non-prophet organization ? :-) StuRat (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Even Christianity itself was an oral tradition until ~70AD, and earlier historians who wrote about "Jewish troubles" never referred to Jesus, even vaguely, although as mentioned the records from that period are sketchy at best. What I do find shocking is that the search for records didn't even start until 1700 years later. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Jesus wasn't "nothing special" to the Romans: at the very least, I'd expect they recorded his execution ("III Aprilis: two thieves and a rabble-rousing preacher were executed"). --Carnildo (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

See the comment below by AnonMoos. I challenge you to demonstrate that any official Roman records from 1st century Palestine have survived. There are none. - Lindert (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, such low-level records are most often preserved in Egypt, by dryness (not wetness) -- but more often private contracts and letters than official government records. Extremely few internal governmental files or working documents have survived from the Roman empire, so the fact that none has survived mentioning Jesus means absolutely nothing... AnonMoos (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Execution scene

While channel flipping the other day I saw a scene in a movie where a guy was about to be executed, and the guards pulled down his pants, stuffed cotton balls into his anus, and changed him into a great big white diaper. Supposedly they do this to ease cleanup by minimizing the damage of him pooping himself when he is executed. Apart from being rather disturbed at the scene, it provoked some questions on actual practice. My question is 1) Do they really stuff cotton into the anuses of those about to be executed? 2)Do they really make them wear diapers? and 3) If they do both of these things, why bother with the cotton? It seems redundant because without the cotton, all that happens is that the convict messes their diaper during execution. Rabuve (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I might depend on the method of execution, but I don't think it's a normal part of preparing the condemned in most places and with most methods. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I question the accuracy of the OP's account. This does not square with any account I've read of executions. Maybe in some country they do that as an additional means of humiliation, like in some countries making the family pay for the bullets used to execute their family member, or demolishing the family home to punish the family of a killer. You should provide a better source for such an odd claim. They expect loss of bowel and badder control when a person is put to death, and someone gets to mop up. Edison (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not recounting an actual even I saw. As I said, it was a scene in a movie and I am asking whether or not they really do or did this kind of thing. Rabuve (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I remember that scene, it was from Ted Bundy (film). I am not sure if that actually happened, but I think the purpose of it in the movie was to show the total humiliation of Ted Bundy after all those scenes where he had been shown raping and killing women. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Adult diaper mentions "execution diapers" worn by some prisoners, although it's not very well sourced, and there's no indication whether it's compulsory in some jails, or what. Velma Barfield is recorded as wearing an adult diaper at her execution, for example. There was a Straight Dope forum thread on the same topic, where nobody could find any evidence of cotton plugs.[15] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What a coincidence! I just now finished watching a documentary on You Tube entitled "Death Row Women". One of the death row women interviewed was Lynda Lyon Block. She discusses this very same thing that the OP cites. Namely, that when she is to be executed (via electric chair, in the state of Alabama), the procedures call for cotton to be placed in the anus and for the criminal to be dressed in a diaper. The You Tube link is here: [16]. The part of the documentary where this topic is mentioned begins at about the 16:47 mark in the film. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That seems really strange, surely cotton wouldn't do much to stop anything? Vespine (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It might stop murders. It sounds like more of a deterent than the 2000 Volts anyways... 112.215.36.175 (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Maps of Past Congressional Districts?

Does anyone know where I can find high-resolution, colorful maps of past United States congressional districts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Pagecgd112_ga.pdf&page=1

I know that the U.S. has a National Atlas, but I am unable to find colorful high resolution maps like the one above (except this is for current congressional districts) for past Congressional districts.

Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Not online but if you have access to a big library you can find this:

The historical atlas of United States congressional districts 1789-1983

Kenneth C. Martis, author and editor
Ruth Anderson Rowles, cartographer and assistant editor.
Dewey: 912/.13287307345
Publication Details: New York : Free Press ; London : Collier Macmillan, c1982.
Identifier: ISBN 0029201500; BNB GB8316858

Physical Description: xiii,302p. : maps(some col.) ; 35x50cm.

It's a physically very large book as some of the maps have to be detailed. For Congressional districts after 1983, you may have to do with back editions of 'The Almanac of American Politics', or Congressional Quarterly's 'Politics in America'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. To be honest, I remember when the National Atlas had high-resolution congressional district maps of previous Congressional districts (those between 2005 and 2007, such as the two maps in my link below) five and six years ago.

http://www.iqrealestate.com/CongressionalMaps/TX2.gif

http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/preview/congdist/pagecgd109_GA2.gif

Is there any place where the U.S. federal govt. or someone else keeps high-resolution colorful copies of these maps today? Futurist110 (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/historical_congress.htm - I found some historical colorful CDs for Texas. Futurist110 (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Adult Diaper Statistics

I guess my last question got me thinking! In stores in the health aisle, there is usually quite an array of adult diapers being sold, and I've always wondered just how often they get used in the general public. 1) About how many people in the general public actually use these adult diaper products? 2)How frequently are adult diapers used in hospitals? 3)How frequently are adult diapers used in nursing homes? Rabuve (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

(1)The article on Fecal incontinence says that 2.2% of the general population has problems with feces leaking out (presumable babies are not included in the calculation), with a higher prevalence in older people, and in the female population. "Up to 35%" of the population over age 60 has Urinary incontinence, again with a much higher prevalence among women. Ah, the joys of growing old.(2)It is hard to find stats on "what % of hospital patients use adult diapers." Many folks in hospitals have a Foley catheter collecting urine, so are not urinary incontinent while in hospital, or are there for reasons which have nothing to do with incontinence. (3) There might be a higher percentage of nursing home patients in adult diapers than in the general population, since some folks there have severe senile dementia and various ailments making them incontinent. Also, it has been alleged that nursing home staff may put residents in diapers for the staff's convenience because so many residents are incontinent. Edison (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, some meds and diets cause incontinence of one form or another. Then there are people who only occasionally suffer from incontinence, when their condition flares up, or, in the case of the general public, when they get food poisoning, the flu, etc. StuRat (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Observation, and not medical advice: Generally healthy and competent adults I've known who urinate frequently due to prostate trouble or diabetes, or who have a bout of diarrhea generally have not suddenly started wearing diapers, but have just stayed close enough to a toilet to run to it when the need arose. I guess after a very few episodes of having to change clothing, sheets, etc after an accident, they or their caretaker/spouse/partner would likely make a run and get some adult diapers, along with making arrangements for them to see a doctor and get treatment or medication to restore control. Edison (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Heyy :D

heyy , does any1 have any facts on the New Zealander Sarah Walker (Bmx rider) For Ma projet :) ...Fanks any ways :d — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zobo:D (talk • contribs) 05:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Try this - Sarah Walker (BMX rider). Futurist110 (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, if you intend to get a decent grade from your teacher on this project, you may want to use a more appropriate register. Learning which social environments are appropriate to use which language is a useful skill, and will get you very far in the world. --Jayron32 16:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the basis of considering somebody a political philosopher?

Given much information about the scope of political philosophy, what is then the encyclopedic basis of considering a person to be of the discipline of political philosophy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazooka mortar (talk • contribs) 06:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy is not a regulated profession like doctor, lawyer, etc. If you get a BA in Philosophy or a PhD in Philosophy that does not make you a philosopher. Normally if you start getting published, people referring to your work, going to conferences, this might make you a philosopher. Alternatively, if you pronounce "I am an amateur philosopher" then you are one. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Being called a political philosopher, or any kind of philosopher, is like being called a hero or genius: the motives of the speaker probably come into it. For instance, if someone agrees with you they may call you a "brilliant political philosopher", if they disagree they may call you a "hack writer" instead. If you've written a book on something vaguely resembling political philosophy your publishers will probably call you a "political philosopher" if they want to get it reviewed in philosophical journals, included as a textbook on political philosophy courses, interviewed by serious newspapers, etc, but if they're trying to get you on Fox News they may call you something less ivory-tower. If you're teaching on a political philosophy course, they will claim that you're a political philosopher, not an aesthetician or economics lecturer, because who wants to take a course that's not taught by an expert? Gradually, with time, all these sources may begin to agree, and then you're a genuine political philosopher. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy is the study of the underlying structure of various aspects of human existance: scientific philosophy looks at the underlying structure of science (how it is organized, how people think in a scientific mindset, etc. etc.), and political philosophy looks at the underlying political structures that define how people are governed (the relationship between the governed and the government, the structure of the government, etc.) Any asshole can write (and with the internet "publish") a treatise on political thought, just as any asshole can disect a dead squirel and call themselves a biologist. It is general acceptance by the community at large as a political philosopher (exactly as it would be for a biologist or a plumber or a whatever) that determines what they should be called. So, people who have published works that are recognized as authoritative in the field of political philosophy are generally considered to be notable for being political philosophers, as opposed to just random assholes with crazy ideas. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was the former. Ted Kaczynski was the latter. --Jayron32 16:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

About accounting and :please tell me the relationship between the Audit risk and Materiality?

Hi，I am a college student majoring in accounting.Now I have a question about auditing. Please tell me the relationship between the Audit risk and Materiality? and it will be better if you can explain itLemonvivian (talk) ThxLemonvivian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Will our articles Audit risk and Materiality (auditing) help? You can also try the first two links on this page. If that doesn't work, just post again saying what is the part that you don't understand. 184.147.118.54 (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Only normal profit in a perfectly competitive industry?

Why all firms earn only normal profit in a perfectly competitive industry? Thanks in advance--180.234.246.221 (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no such term as "perfectly competitive industry". It is meaningless, just as "perfectly competitive sport" or "perfectly competitive school" would be. Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, it's a theoretical construct, but then, so are ideal gases and perfect vacuums, they're still worth considering. Anyhow, this is a typical homework question, so I'm reluctant to give the full answer. Rather, I would urge the OP to consider incentives to enter and leave the market under different levels of profit. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 18:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

We did discuss the topic recently, so it is possible the OP is trying to follow the previous thread, rather than doing homework. --Tango (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There certainly is such a term. See perfect competition. --Tango (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

True, though as a term there are three orders of magnitude more Unicorns. http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22perfectly+competitive+industry%22&word2=unicorn --80.99.254.208 (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a point? --Tango (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah but the hat covers it —Tamfang (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Differences Between Colonialism and Imperialism?

The main difference that I can think of is that in colonialism there was a much greater transfer of the occupying country's population to the colonies, in contrast to imperialism, where (in most cases) very few of the occupying country's population moved to other parts of the empire. Are there any other differences? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You could start with Colonialism vs Imperialism, Imperialism vs Colonialism and this randomly selected research paper. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

False dichotomy and incorrect use of terms. The currently preferred term in Academic literature to discuss the kind of imperialism that involved large scale ethnic movements with the intention of replicating the home society in the distant society is "settler societies." YMMV, but your terms are out of date with the current state of research, and poor at specifying the difference to be discussed. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Colonialism is more about establishing colonies for the mother country, while imperialism is more about exploiting a country's resources or people. --Activism1234 23:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Marriage in the United States

I've been looking for some supreme court cases that touch on the purposes of marriage. I remember somewhere reading that in an opinion once the court said that marriage is about relationships just as much as it is procreation, but I can't seem to find it. 1)Can someone direct me to the case I am thinking of? 2)Can anyone reccomend a good website for doing searches of supreme court opinions? Thanks. Rabuve (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Cornell University has a search engine for supreme court opinions. Plugging in "marriage" and "relationships" gave 60 results; about 10 of them are dissents. Still a big number to go through, but perhaps if you can come up with another keyword from what you remember you can narrow it down? 184.147.118.54 (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Traditionally in the U.S., defining and regulating marriage has been much more a matter for the individual states, rather than the federal government... AnonMoos (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As I recall, there's nothing explicitly stated at all about marriage in the US Constitution. Marriage is a contract entered into under individual states' laws. Any Supreme Court cases would likely center on allegations of violation of the Equal Protection amendment, or something along those lines. That's not to say federal coercion doesn't come into play from time to time. For example, Utah had to disavow polygamy before it was granted admission to the Union. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The Utah thing was congress setting conditions for a territory to be admitted to statehood. Congress has basically unlimited powers over territories, quite different from the federal-state relationship... AnonMoos (talk) 04:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Loving v. Virginia may be a case of interest to you. Shadowjams (talk) 06:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Historical weather records

Are there any websites (or even books) where I can find records of the weather and temperatures on a certain date in a certain place? Say, San Francisco on July 4, 1860, just as an example? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Weather Underground has historical records, but (at least for San Francisco, CA) these only go back to 1948 (17°C and dry). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you only want San Francisco? Environment Canada offers historic weather data for major cities in Canada. The drop down menu goes back to 1840, but for most cities there's actually only data to the 50s or 60s, a few go to the 30s. 184.147.118.54 (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Depending on how far back you're looking, the local newspaper for that date may be your only hope. This may involve a trip to a large library and spending some time with the microfilm machine. Zoonoses (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

NOAA has some good information online. Some is behind a paywall, some is not, but I did find this which has some data sets going back to the 1800s. --Jayron32 03:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not looking for just San Francisco, nor for just US. UK links would be great, as well as for any countries. Thanks for the links. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There are very odd statements in the US about historical weather data. It gets hot or cold or there is some precipitation and US papers maunder about how "This is the most extreme weather since records were first kept in 1885" or some such year. That seems to date to the establishment of the US Weather Bureau, which has since had its name changed variously. Long before that, weather records were systematically collected and analyzed by Joseph Henry by the 1840's. Also, newspapers kept records of extreme weather. When there was on the US East Coast the Great Blizzard of 1888, the New York papers wrote authoritatively about weather extremes back to the late1600's. It is as if there was sudden amnesia when the Weather Bureau was established, and old records were to be expunged and forgotten and never mentioned.. It was not as if they suddenly started using perfect thermometers as opposed to earlier making random wild guesses as to local temperatures and precipitation and barometric pressure.. New York papers in the late 19th century criticized the placement of the "official thermometer" and noted reflection of heat from metal rooftops, and contrasted it with lower temperatures nearer street level recorded by sheltered thermometers. There is indeed archived weather data from the mid 19th century, but it may require a bit of digging. Edison (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

For ease of use, I go to climatestations -- here's their San Francisco page: http://www.climatestations.com/san-francisco/ They only have a handful of cities, all from the U.S., but since I happen to live in one of them, it works for me. They only post historical data in graphical formats, that I can see, which would make getting data for an exact date a matter of pixel-counting: I can't find any tabular data on their site, anyway. They say their data is taken from this site: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/climatedata.html which is the same site Jayron suggested above, so I expect that would be the best place to look. And I don't know if 1860 was chosen at random or not, but I think it's safe to say that reliable and regular weather records for many cities in the American West won't go back that far -- the suggestions of consulting newspapers are probably best for dates that early, but that'll be slow work if you have a lot of dates to check. You might consider using the Library of Congress's "Chronicling America" search engine for newspapers from the U.S. in the 19th Century -- http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/ -- not comprehensive, and less good than paywalled databases that a good research university probably has access to, but easier than hitting the microfilm reader! Jwrosenzweig (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

UK Met Office has some historical data at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/ The Armagh station's records go back to Jan 1853. Astronaut (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

August 3

Would Creating a List of Goldman Sachs Research Papers Article be a Good Idea?

After all, Goldman Sachs produced a lot of research papers over the years, including some notable ones. Futurist110 (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

To what end? --Jayron32 03:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The ref desk isn't the appropriate place to raise this. You should go to WP:AFC or perhaps Talk:Goldman Sachs. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

General questions about editing belong on WP:Help desk. I'd suggest that you start by adding notable research papers to Goldman Sachs, and then if the list gets too long, you can put it on a separate page, but don't create a page that's mostly non-notable papers. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I followed your advice and created a list of the notable papers on the Goldman Sachs article. Futurist110 (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Hinduism

Why is Brahma worshiped less than the other members of the Hindu trimurti? Since he's the creator god, why isn't he worshiped the most? --108.206.7.65 (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know much about this aspect of Hinduism, but a phenomenon in a number of traditional religions in various parts of the world is that there's a creator god and/or supreme head of the pantheon who's a somewhat shadowy and remote figure, and that less exalted divinities are considered much more involved in day-to-day human concerns... AnonMoos (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that's basically correct. Specifically in Hinduism it's because Brahma created the world long ago. Vishnu the preserver and Shiva the destroyer have more influence on people's lives now that the world already exists.--Wikimedes (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

jesus and figs

is there a causal relationship here between the first part and the last part?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+11%3A12-14&version=KJV

reading litrally it sounds to me like he got mad because there weren't any figs so he said, you know what NOBODY gets figs. is there a deeper meaning here? It also puts J in a bad light, like he has an anger management problem - why would the bible writers write it like that (i.e. in that "causal" way as above). Finally was there some historic significance to figs that makes the sentence easier to understand. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Also: do Christians followt his edict, which seems to me extremely direct! (A lot more direct than a lot of other ones they follow.) --80.99.254.208 (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This here article-type thing says, "Traditional Christian exegesis regarding these accounts include affirmation of the Divinity of Jesus by demonstrating his authority over nature." It then goes on to give alternative supersessionist interpretations that connect it (for some reason) with the parable of the barren fig tree. Also, that's not a command that no one should eat figs anymore, but simply a statement that the individual tree in question would no longer bear fruit. I recommend a translation in modern English, as the King James is prone to causing all sorts of confusion in areas like that. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps it is the translation - in the translation I quoted, as a single individual fig tree is not immortal, the only way anyone can possibly interpret "And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever" is that no one is to eat figs. Otherwise adding "forever" simply does not make sense. I understand that figs may be delicious but this is pretty cut and dried for anyone who can read. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. "Forever" is often used, at least in English, to mean "for as long as it would otherwise be possible". For example, "I'm leaving you forever". StuRat (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Jesus did occasionally have a bit of a tamper tantrum, though, like the overturning of the money-changers tables at the temple. StuRat (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I was going to ask if this was the reason the medieval Church chose fig leaves (over other potential obstructors) to cover the genitalia of every statue and painting they could get their hands on - "May no one ever eat fruit from you again..." - but apparently not. Oh well. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither sausages nor eggs are classified as fruit. :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Nuts! μηδείς (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Jesus uses the singular thou is a hint that he is talking to just one tree. μηδείς (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Does the original Greek make the distinction between singular and plural second person or is that an artifact of the KJV? --Jayron32 18:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Greek (like most European languages) distinguishes between second person singular and plural. - Lindert (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Does the original Greek text of that passage use the singular you or the plural you? --Jayron32 18:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't you trust the KJV translators? The Greek text translated 'of thee' in Mark 11:14 is 'εκ σου', which is indeed a singular (see here for an overview of Greek pronouns). - Lindert (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't that I don't trust them, as though they were acting in bad faith. Different translators will arrive at different good-faith conclusions regarding the appropriate way to translate a passage, given the intricacies of translating in general. I believe that the KJV translators were providing what they felt was, to them, the most accurate translation of the passage. That doesn't mean that there would be universal agreement among every translator. It isn't that they would be untrustworthy, there are many good reasons to ask what the original text was, and "not trusting the translators" isn't necessarily the main reason. --Jayron32 18:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. Of course these translators made mistakes or had certain interpretations that others may differ in. My point was really that the knowledge of pronouns is such an elementary issue that not even a first-year Greek student would make such a blunder as to translate a plural as a singular. There is no room for such basic errors in a translation by professionals. - Lindert (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

exactly μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't have a personal stake in resolving the question, it does, however, get to the heart of the meaning of the passage to understand what the original text said. It has nothing to do with me, so arguing with me over what I feel about it is completely besides the point. It is quite relevent, when discussing what a passage in an historical text says, to know what the passage in the historical text, you know, actually says. I don't really understand why you spent three responses personalizing this to me regarding my supposed opinion of the KJV translators, of which I have none, and even if I did, it wouldn't change the relevence of knowing what a passage said when discussing what it was a passage said. --Jayron32 18:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't particularly trust the translations in the King James Version. For example, is "Thou shalt not kill" a correct translation ? If taken literally, it not only forbids murder, but also executions, killing in war, and killing animals and plants. (Technically it also forbids the killing of microorganisms, but they can be excused on that count for not knowing of their existence.) I suspect that the original meaning was closer to "Thou shalt not commit murder". StuRat (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It is kind of hard to get translating the second person pronoun συ (cognate with Latin tu, PIE in general) with the English thou wrong. The difficulty in "Thou shalt not kill" (originally from Hebrew) is in the meaning of the verb, not the pronoun. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As with so many things, we have an article You shall not murder. Nil Einne (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It's even worse than I thought, with the original meaning more like "Thou shalt not destroy", which could mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Fig fruit has a laxative effect, and thus promotes regular bowel movements. Other religious leaders whose teachings have emphasised peace, such as the Dalai Lama, have also been documented as considering regular bowel movements to be important. However, it may be undue synthesis to connect Jesus' annoyance at not finding a readily available supply of fig fruit with such considerations. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am not seeing where this question has been personalized. The text with word-for word translation is here, and is quite straightforward:
  καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτῇ·
  And answering he-said to-it
  μηκέτι εἰς τὸν αἰώνα ἐκ σοῦ μηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγοι.
  No-more in the aeon from thee nobody a-fruit shall-eat (optative)
  καὶ ἤκουον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ.
  and they-heard the disciples [the words] of-him
  And Jesus answered and said unto it
  No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever
  And his disciples heard it. -KJV
  It is also very interesting that thou (i.e., you singular) is one of the most basic of words, one of the most conservative words in linguistic evolution, on the Swadesh list, as well as the third in all roots for stability on the Dolgopolsky list. μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to mention, αὐτῇ and σοῦ are both explicitly singular forms here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Minor point: the Textus Receptus, the basis for the cited (KJV) translation has a slightly different word order and adds 'ο ιησους'. - Lindert (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

In 11-13 it says "the indeed season not it was of figs", or as it says in the article, "because it was not the season for figs". So even if only one fig tree was affected by this curse, it still seems a sulky and gratuitously destructive act. The part further on, where Jesus incites everybody to magically throw mountains in the sea, if they feel like it, seems downright dangerous. Jesus was in his middle thirties at the time, and frankly I would expect more maturity and more responsible actions.  Card Zero  (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

He obviously didn't get enough sleep, pending crucifixion and all, and was cranky.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

So Jesus behaved irresponsibly, eh, Card Zero? How about we give him a thorough dressing down, a good thrashing, and send him bed without his supper. Yes, that oughta fix it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, a metaphorical interpretation of the "mountain, sea; sea, mountain" passage greatly mitigates any real danger that would otherwise be involved. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

See http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2003366#s=15:0-16:414.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The story is a metaphor. The fruit tree heard his words, but did not respond, and was cursed. This is more of an ancient gnostic teaching than a modern ethical one. Heed Jesus' saving message, or the same will happen to you. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a strange passage, but it did inspire the sadly defunct website GodHatesFigs.com. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Eva Braun

In the article, there is a part where I don't understand the purpose of it. "She attempted suicide twice during their early relationship." Obviously it is the relationship between her and Hitler. So why did she attempt to suicide? Was it because of Hitler? Pendragon5 (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I've heard that she was depressed due to Hilter always being away with work...those untermenschen didn't just erradicate themsevles you know. 101.172.127.247 (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't tell me you're saying that word in a serious manner. That's sickening. --Activism1234 18:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The tradition here is that small text is used when not being serious. Besides, the turn of phrase "those X don't Y themselves you know" is much overused in lazy parody, and nazis have been the regular target of parody for over 70 years, The Great Dictator being a notable example. So I think you're feeling sick by mistake.  Card Zero  (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a fan of Nazi jokes, particularly those relating to genocide, but thanks for the explanation. --Activism1234 21:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not just away with work. Nobody's totally sure why she did it, but she was probably jealous of him seeing other women and not spending time with her. It seemed to work to get Hitler's attention.[17][18][19][20] --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

In a documentary I saw once, there was an argument that Hitler didn't want to be married, because it would make him more attractive to the female voters. (That's a very simplistic rephrasing of a more complex argument from memory, and it doesn't sound very convincing at all.) However, if Braun saw herself to be the 'secret lover', closeted away, and not being able to be with her man outside, that could lead her to commit suicide. V85 (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Halbstadt

Here, at page 186 of this book http://books.google.it/books?id=jdRO9_rsokUC&pg=PA185&lpg=PA185&dq=hegewald+halbstadt&source=bl&ots=6n5_Fv8cF7&sig=ycYjqmDWZi9AHmY79D2scyTCDhE&hl=it&sa=X&ei=9fsbUM6bMsSL4gT0_4CoAQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false, there is a wartime photo of the town sign of the Nazi colony of Halbstadt. It reads: "Halbstadt Deutsche Kolonie - Нім. ҝолонія - Colonia Germana". Apparently, the first and second ones are German and Ukrainian/Russian for "German colony". What I'm wondering are the language and the purpose (that's why I'm asking here and not at the Language Desk) of the third part (Colonia Germana). To me it sounds like Latin, but it doesn't make much sense, does it? --151.41.181.244 (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Germanicus/Germanica was the usual Latin word for German (adjective)[21]. (Germania was Germany.) The Nazis liked Latin when they wanted to pretend to rule an empire as mighty as Rome's, as in Hitler's plans for Welthauptstadt Germania. Although i guess it could be a failed attempt to transliterate the Russian, or possibly even Romanian or Ladino language. (I assume it was the Halbstadt in Ukraine? The book isn't visible in all countries.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The middle language is not Russian. There are no i's - dotted or otherwise - in Russian. Dotted i's are a feature of Ukrainian, though. The Russian for "German colony" would be Нeмeтская ҝолония, abbreviated to Нeм. ҝолония. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Though not relevant here, it ought to be specified that Russian has no ‹і› since the spelling reform of 1918. —Tamfang (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Colonia Germana" is Romanian (it could also be Latin but "Germanus/a/um" usually means something else). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

is nationalism collectivism?

I can imagine an "ultra-individualist", perhaps some Ayn-Randian type, making a case that this is so. But then I think about Victorian England and other nations at the time, I mean they were pretty nationalist but also individualist. On the contrary, Eastern Europe was collectivist but also pretty multi-cultural, avant la lettre :) (Eastern Europe's diversity (think Carpathia, Bessarabia, those lands) is sometimes cited as a reason for her delayed adoption of new stuff as compared to the West.) But then in today's world, most ethnic conflicts seem to unfold in traditionalist (as opposed to Post-Modern) societies, that I guess also are collectivist and tribal as hell. Or is tribalism a sign of a failure to instill (healthy) nationalism? Is then tribalism collectivism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Уга-уга12 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Nationalism is by definition exclusive. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No logical reason why someone couldn't be nationalistically loyal to a Night-watchman state... AnonMoos (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that "collectivism" is a term almost entirely derivative of Rand's ideology, I would suggest that you peruse the original texts regarding Rand's opinion of the nation. I deal regularly with colleagues whose work pertains to the "national" and "the national imaginary" and "collectivism" is not a term used or considered pertinent in current scholarship. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Collectivism is a socialist term dating to Bakunin and Kropotkin and used as frequently by Hayek and Marx as by Rand. The fact that modern leftists "academics" avoid it is hardly surprising. μηδείς (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.Уга-уга12 (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It may not be as relevant to current scholarship, but it's a nice intuitive term with a long history. I never regarded it as something made-up by a single person (and I know a made-up term when I see one, "praxiology", for example).Уга-уга12 (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

August 4

Why did JFK Threaten to Put Sanctions on Israel For Building Nukes?

After all, Israel genuinely needed nukes for its security, especially back then. Futurist110 (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion. Others may have different opinions. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Did he? Wikipedia, at least, says nothing about that. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if JFK did or not, but one possible result of Israel getting nukes is that all their enemies would want them too, which would be very bad. And Israel also seemed quite capable of defending itself with conventional weapons. StuRat (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

During JFK's presidential term, the United States still carefully avoided being seen to be in any kind of direct active military alliance with Israel, and the legacy of Suez 1956 left a lingering impression that the Israelis were loose cannons, whose possession of nukes would not necessarily simplify U.S. diplomatic tasks. Of course, all that was blown away by the events of 1967, when the Arabs by their behavior drove the United States into the arms of Israel... -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Which behavior ? StuRat (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Attacking or preparing to attack Israel in the hope of wiping it off the map. Futurist110 (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Didn't they already do that, starting in 1948 ? StuRat (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact that the Arabs didn't learn their lesson after 20 years as well as their increasingly genocidal rhetoric made the U.S. change its mind. I do want to point out that Israel's conventional weapons advantage would only last as long as the West would be willing to sell Israel these weapons, and in the event of an oil embargo threat (such as in 1973) and an unsympathetic U.S. President, Israel would be obliterated without nukes as soon as it runs out of conventional weaponry and military supplies. Futurist110 (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

StuRat -- from the U.S. point of view, the behavior of acting as pathetic bloodthirsty military incompetents, or vicious wannabe-genocidal maniacs who couldn't shoot straight, to be frank. In their loose irresponsible grandiose rhetoric combined with largely self-defeating actions, the Arab leaders revealed themselves to be far more loose cannons than the Israelis had been in 1956, and the United States pretty much just stopped playing the game of trying not to offend the Arabs in the hope that such appeasement might prevent the consolidation of an Arab-Soviet alliance. Thus the former taboo against any kind of appearance of a direct U.S.-Israel military alliance was broken, and the Arabs mainly had themselves to blame for this. AnonMoos (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Kennedy opposed Israel getting nuclear weapons, for a complicated set of reasons. You can read quite a lot of Kennedy-era documents regarding the Israeli nuclear program here. This CIA assessment is quite telling with respects to the US position — they felt that it would severely complicated Middle Eastern relations, both in how Israel would act towards its neighbors, and the likely responses of its neighbors, which would also likely blow-back with regards to Arab interactions with the United States. The calculus of this sort of thing is much more complicated than just "needed the nukes for its security" or not. Another way to put this is that from a US perspective, it is never positive for another nation to get nuclear weapons — not just because it may increase the possibility of nuclear war, but also because the US has had (since World War II) global ambitions of dominance, and nuclear weapons complicate those ambitions considerably. (The USSR felt similarly during its time, though it did give China more aid than it later wished it had towards getting nuclear weapons. France by comparison didn't have as much of a problem with the idea of destabilizing other regions with nuclear weapons — hence their support of the Israeli nuclear program, which they saw as a way to get Egypt off their back with regards to Algeria.) --Mr.98 (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

French cities with Walloon population

Which cities of France have significant population of Walloon people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.23.213 (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Why, when you ask such questions, do you always take for granted dubious presumptions (i.e. that Flemish-language speakers in France consider themselves to be either "Dutch" -- last time you asked -- or "Walloon" -- this time)??? The question might be more readily answered if you didn't use ethnic- or national-identity terminology in a manner which is possibly incorrect, and most definitely loose and sloppy... AnonMoos (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

What's the evidence that the OP thinks Flemish-speakers consider themselves Walloon?! —Tamfang (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on his last "Dutch" question, that's what I assumed. If I misunderstood both, I apologize (though not too much, considering...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop asking these questions. If you are this interested in migration statistics, you need to learn how to find them yourself. Look at the kind of places people have found statistics for you before, and try similar places for your latest question. We're a reference desk - we're not here to do extensive research for you. --Tango (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Malik Joyeux

Was Malik Joyeux a Native Tahitian?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the Tahitians Wikipedia article, Yes. Futurist110 (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I added him, and I am not sure about it. So that is why I am asking the question.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I'm genuinely unsure. Sorry about that. I tried finding something on Google but couldn't find anything. Futurist110 (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

He was born in France. Joyeux himself liked to obscure his origin and the first newspaper report contained wrong information, which is probably why Wikipedia got it wrong - the problem was once it's here other places (including other news organizations who should know better) start reporting it as fact and then it becomes very difficult to dig down to the real answer.

What seems to have happened is the first report, on the accident, made the (wrong) Tahiti claim. Writing the day after the accident, the Honolulu Advertiser first said "Joyeux was born on March 31, 1980, in Tahiti". The New York Times repeated this three weeks later in an article about Pipeline: "Tahitian-born Malik Joyeux".

However, once reporters had the chance to talk to his family, the correct place of birth came out. Reporting on the funeral service, the Honolulu Advertiser said: "Thilan Joyeux, Malik's sister, said ... Her mother, Helene Joyeux, brought the children to Tahiti when they were very young and raised them as Tahitian, said Thilan, 23. "He didn't like to say he was French," she said, laughing at the memory. "He's even more Tahitian than some Tahitians."" His obituary five days after the tragedy, in the Honolulu Star Bulletin, says "He was born in France".

We might also add this info from his friend Tim McKenna: "Raised on the tropical island paradise of Moorea in French Polynesia, he started surfing at the age of 8." 184.147.121.211 (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

(I fixed and sourced his article.)184.147.121.211 (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Immigration Policies of European Countries in the 19th and Early 20th Centuries

Which European countries had the most strict and the most lenient immigration policies between 1800/1850 and 1950? Futurist110 (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The Netherlands was famously lenient before 1849 according to this source, but this says restrictive immigration policies then began to be passed. 184.147.121.211 (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Was that equally true of all of the Netherlands before the Kingdom was formed in (iirc) 1816? —Tamfang (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The UK was quite welcoming to political dissidents, such as Alexander Herzen and Karl Marx, and had a large Jewish immigrant population in the late 19th/early 20th century. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

What about the other European countries? Futurist110 (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This is rather speculative, but I believe that migration control is a modern concept. In the 19th century, if you couldn't scratch a living in one country, you could go and try to make a living somewhere else. Obviously, you would find somewhere that wasn't depressed or in famine, and where your religion would be tolerated. I've tried to find a reference to support this, but have failed so far. Alansplodge (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I thought that many European countries in the 19th and early 20th centuries restricted immigration of non-native ethnicities (unless their population was stagnating), considering how widespread and popular nationalism was in Europe at the time. Also, I heard that many European academics back then tried using pseudoscience to demonstrate that their ethnicity was superior to others. This is in contrast to the U.S., where until the 1920s there was large support to allow white immigrants from any country to immigrate to the U.S. Futurist110 (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well certainly 19th century London supported a large German community, as well as the east European Jews mentioned above. A number of British intellectuals took up residence in Paris without any difficulty. However, as most European countries had a surplus of cheap labour, those driven away from their homes by poverty would be more likely to look to the US, Canada and Australia for an opportunity to better themselves, rather than join the bottom of a very big heap in Europe. Alansplodge (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that nationalism was somewhat less widespread in Britain and France during this time than in countries to their east, such as Germany, Italy, the Balkans, and Russia. Futurist110 (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Frederick of Austria (Habsburg)

After the rise of the Habsburg to the Duchy (later Archduchy) of Austria, they had four rulers by the name of Frederick. If Frederick the Fair was Frederick I, the second being the son of Otto, Duke of Austria, the fourth being Frederick IV, Duke of Austria and the fifth being Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor, then who was the third Frederick.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 10:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Frederick III, Duke of Austria, presumably. Not sure why he's not on the List of rulers of Austria though, maybe because of his age. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 11:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

After over 4 years, what happens to my unpaid Softbank cellphone bill?

we cannot entertain requests for legal advice
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I studied at the Nagasaki Gaikokugo Daigaku until July 31, 2008, and even though all foreign students were ordered to turn in their phones back to their providers by the end of their stay, I was deviant; I decided that since my phone (a Panasonic 920p was years ahead of phones in America, with features that STILL haven't arrived and all, I would take it back to America with me. Its camera was so cool, that I was looking forward to using it even after the service got cut off. Last I heard, I owed ~$765 (in a time when the Yen was still ¥105/$1.) I figured that they would not be able to trace me back to my home address, and I was right. I got to use my phone for "free" in America (even though international roaming charges were quite up there) until at some point, I no longer had service. The camera also stopped working even though it had nothing to do with a service connection. I tried getting a HyperSIM Card from an online vendor who never shipped it; so I am still dubious to whether such cards even exist. (Do they? And where can one buy them and actually receive said card?) Purportedly, I would've gotten to keep using the phone for free with all functions restored had I obtained and installed said HyperSIM card. Now I wonder: Estimably how much more in late and other fees would my Japanese phone bill have accumulated? Why haven't they found me all the way back to America yet? (I know Softbank has a few U.S. operations.) Are they likely still looking for my address & other relevant info? Would they report me to the American credit reporting agencies if they found out where I was? And finally, say that I return to Japan in 5 years or so, just for a vacation or on business. What happens when I debark at the airport? Thanks. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC) So, in summary: you screwed someone and need legal advice on how to get away with it? OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Please contact the company you were dealing with or a lawyer. μηδείς (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is Jason Russell now?

asked and answered
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have a hard time finding online what Jason Russell has been doing since March. Last I heard, he had a public breakdown of some kind; he lost his mind and was brought to a mental hospital. Don't you think since a lot of people are known to continue some form of their cause or another behind hospital walls, Jason would do that too? But do we know what Jason is doing wherever he's being held, when he gets out, and what he plans to do as soon as he's out? I wish somebody out here had an update about him. There's been nothing new on Jason since mid-March. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC) You asked this a few days ago. Asking the same question again is not going to get any more information. As we're talking about the private health condition of someone, Wikipedia doesn't know anything that you won't find on Google. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC) That's -only- because the replies fizzled out. I was expecting a better turnout but it didn't come, so I had to give it a 2nd go. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Replies fizzled out because nobody had anything else to say. --Tango (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Please don't ask live questions twice.μηδείς (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

History of religion

Why is there a general global trend for societies to go from animism to polytheism to monotheism as they develop? Why weren't Hinduism and Shinto, which are polytheist and animist, respectively, affected by this shift? --108.206.7.65 (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the second part of your question suggests an answer (or rebuttal) to the supposition in the first part. Our article History of religion has links to some relevant articles. Does it help?

Relatively few societies independently evolved a monotheistic religion - while many people in the world adhere to monotheistic religions today, that is due more to the persuasive power (whether by words or by the sword) of such religions than to any evolution as a consequence of social development per se.

There are far more surviving religions which are polytheist or animist, and in many parts of the world the trend has been different or ever opposite to how you describe. In India, for example, a non-theistic Buddhism was overtaken by a revamped, polytheistic Hinduism. In China, the monotheistic "heaven worship" was overtaken by (and in some sense incorporated into) the polytheistic Taoism, which itself gave significant ground to Buddhism. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Also Ancient Egypt's Atenism, one of the oldest known examples of monotheism. It has even been linked to the development of the Abrahamic religions, though that's controversial. It was quickly replaced by the preexisting polytheism after Akhenaten died.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The theory that there's a "trend for societies to go from animism to polytheism to monotheism as they develop" is most closely associated with Auguste Comte (see Law of three stages), although the notion was certainly repeated and developed by others during the nineteenth century. I think you'd be hard put to find many contemporary scholars who accept such a natural progression, at least in the crude form implied by your question. Deor (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Most monotheists are also not really monotheists either. Though not admitted as such, demons, jinns, angels, saints, prophets, and satan are themselves gods. In some instances, they are surviving subsumed deities of conquered religions. The modern western image of the devil for example, is a conglomeration of various ancient gods who have been demonized after their worshippers converted (usually forcibly). In the middle east, the devil is deliberately conflated with local gods (baals), including dragon/serpent ones like Tiamat. When Abrahamic religions spread into Europe through Christianity, it again usurped the local pantheon who were recast as the devil. Notably retaining Poseidon's trident and the cloven hooves and horned heads of pagan nature gods like Pan and the satyrs or Odin in the Wild Hunt. It can even work in reverse. In the Philippines for example, instead of displacing the local religion, it instead merged with it. The local creator god Bathala became identified with the Christian God, while the various lesser deities were either forgotten or relegated to angelic roles. In the middle east, the local nature gods (jinns) were adopted into Islamic folklore as the third sentient creation. Saints, idols, monuments, shrines, angels, Mary, Santa Claus, these are all elements of polytheism and ancestor worship peeking under the blanket of monotheism.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Obsidian Soul's notion that the presence of supernatural beings such as saints (the souls of good dead people) violates the idea of monotheism, which is the belief in one God (not the belief in only one supernatural being) is an idiosyncratic one that seems to mimic certain forms of Islam and radical Unitarian protestantism. Catholics, for example, don't consider saints gods, or themselves polytheists. μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The chauvinism that "God" has a special meaning independent of what is actually practiced is typically monotheistic. Though you classify them as merely "supernatural" they are worshipped in the exact same way "God" is, despite excuses of them merely being intercession or whatever. See deity.

"A deity is a supreme being, natural, supernatural or preternatural, with magical or superhuman powers or qualities, and who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred. Believers may consider that they can communicate with the deity, who can respond supernaturally to their entreaties, and that the deity's myths are true."

Go on. Show me how and why satan, saints, jinn, shrines, idols, or angels are not deities. Then show me how it differs from henotheism in a meaningful way.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so you are defining them as divine, instead of supernatural, just not supreme. The Romans did something similar. So what? Why do you expect me to argue with you? You gonna send me to Ref Desk Hell? You are entitled to define your terms however you like. Not that anyone else uses those words the same way you are choosing to do so. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

An awful lot of Catholics seem to pray to Mother Mary. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And to patron saints, or any favourite saint. There's a difference between praying to some departed person who's believed to be in Heaven and can intercede on behalf of the pray-er, and claiming they're God. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

How about claiming they're a god? Where does one end and the other begin? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Catholicism, and Christianity generally, reserve the term "God" for one supreme being. Whatever special status any other beings may have, they are not God and are not even gods. There is, by the religion's definition, only one god, God. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bible makes a distinction between one true God and many false gods. (Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 7:16; Daniel 3:18; 1 Corinthians 8:5, 6)

—Wavelength (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly the point. It's a matter of terminology. Thus the claims of the propensity of human religions to turn into monotheisms over time isn't really justifiable when similar practices as those of polytheisms, etc. are still in place. Just under a different name. Whether this is officially sanctioned, condemned, or explained away by their clerical bodies or their philosophers doesn't really matter that much overall. Christianity itself started out being contentious among Jews precisely because of Jesus' claims of divinity. And the concept of the trinity and how to reconcile Jesus with monotheism has continuously split off churches from churches over the centuries. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with ObsidanSoul's take here. You could easily redefine the terms from the ancient Greek pantheon and call Zeus God, with all the other gods as lesser dieties. There's nothing advanced about monotheism. It's just terminology. 112.215.36.172 (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I was objecting to you characterizing what I said as idiosyncratic. Because I'm certainly not alone in the observation that most claims of monotheism doesn't exactly hinge on any meaningful differences but terminology. Instead of ancestor worship, they're saints; instead of demigods, they're prophets; instead of avatars or lesser gods, they're angels; instead of a rival god, it's the devil; instead of a mother goddess, it's Mary. Heck, angels even have their specific dominions mirroring the roles of the lesser gods in the polytheistic pantheons. Nuriel creates hailstorms, Michael dispenses mercy, Azrael dispenses death, Camael is the heavenly police, Samael is the entrapment officer, etc. And the jealousy of the Old Testament Abrahamic God implies that "false gods" is really just another term for "not my god". It's one of the perennial arguments in Abrahamic religions. And they're not alone in that oxymoron. Nontheistic Buddhism for example, has also undergone a similar shift. From being a religion that only includes gods as incidental, to being a religion that worships Buddha as a god. By saying "anyone else", I'm guessing you mean not you. Ref Desk has a hell? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I am an atheist. That being said, my understanding of Christianity is that Mary and the other saints only have supernatural powers insofar as God grants them. My "understanding" of polytheistic religions is that Hermes does not depend on the dispensation of Zeus for his juju, while Mary cannot gainsay Jesus. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I know you are. There are plenty of supreme beings in different polytheistic religions who have the power to grant or take away juju. Monism even makes that juju simply different aspects of one giant juju of everything. And lastly, with the control of juju comes the control of evil. But I digress, that's worth another 20 more pages of endless discussion. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for being late to the discussion (too much Olympics to watch!), but I broadly agree with Obsidian Souls's argument, and would additionally adduce the example of Voudun, in which various African deities or Loa have been subsumed under the identities of Roman Catholic Saints, but are in their new context still effectively gods/godesses. (Voudun also identifies the Catholic God and Christ with equivalently supreme African-origin deities, but believes them too important to bother them with everyday concerns, so turns to the lesser Loa just as Catholics direct their prayers to/through Saints).

A similar process is quite consciously employed in Wicca and related Neopaganist movements (disclosure: my own path), where pre-existing and new deities may be viewed as either independent entities and/or aspects or facets of the Lord or Lady according to momentary context. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.109 (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Religious doctrines are too variant in their details to try to make very meaningful statements about trends across different cultures. It's like asking about trends in the use of first versus third person narration across languages. There's plenty of material to summarize, but too much to really generalize accurately. 70.59.11.32 (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

---

108.206.7.65 -- The real shift has been from religions whose characteristics are closely tied to one particular ethnic/cultural group and the details of its way of life, and which often somewhat ignore or have an equivocal relationship with morality, to cosmopolitan religions of individual salvation, which are suitable to be adopted by a number of ethnic/cultural groups, and where there is a strong emphasis on personal morality and redemption. In the Mediterranean/European area, the cosmopolitan religions of individual salvation have been heavily influenced by Judaism, and so monotheistic, but in other areas the outcome was different. Buddhism (especially the Mahayana version) fits very well within the cosmopolitan religions of individual salvation model, and in east Asia, people can be both Buddhist and Confucian, both Buddhist and Shinto, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Agatha Christie story/play

About two years ago I watched a PBS Masterpiece Mystery play from a story/play from Agatha Christie. I can't remember anything about it, other than it was based in Egypt and there was a fun story in it about death and a man in a tavern. What was this play? Albacore (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The obvious thing to suggest would be Death on the Nile, presumably in its Suchet incarnation. I don't remember a tavern, mind, but much doings on a luxurious boat. Is there an Agatha Christie where someone doesn't die? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that she has written about 10⁷ novels, she may have run out of murder plots and settled for burglary or kidnapping once or twice. I vaguely seem to remember a more juvenile-oriented storyline which did not feature a murder. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Christie's Parker Pyne stories appear to encompass only the occasional murder. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I can recommend Death on the Nile (1978 film). It is not a PBS production or import per se. μηδείς (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ancient tear stain

Are their such things as ancient tear stains? I know their are ancient blood stains that can still be seen/detected.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Tears are mostly just saline without being comprised of great masses of cells, platelets, with distinctive proteins, nucleic acids, and glycans like blood is. Tears are far more ephemeral and less distinctive than saliva, even. Tears don't stain; they wash clean. There aren't any forensic techniques which could use tears even if they were far more abundant and easy to recover. They have a handful of hormones in them depending on their type, but in tiny quantities. 70.59.11.32 (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Salt deposits could be left behind, or perhaps the tears caused water-soluble ink to run, say while reading a letter informing them of the death of a loved one. StuRat (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

August 5

HMS Challenger (1858) in Tonga

When exactly did the HMS Challenger (1858) visit Tonga? It was somewhere between 1872 and 1876, does anybody know the exact dates, ie. year and months, even dates. And also does anyone know who was the Governor of Tongatapu, picture here, was during the time this ship went there?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Answering part 1: according to this, HMS Challenger was at Tonga between the 19th and 22nd July, 1874. The log of the Challenger (in an awkward spreadsheet format here) from the National History Museum gives dates for log entries of the 22nd of July for Tongatapu. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Answering part 2: The same photograph is on the NZ National Library website above with a name that I can't magnify the image sufficiently to read, but you can take a shot at it yourself. (Actually the name is in the text and is given as Governor Tungi.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Third question, the link to the Natural Museum site seems to say that the ship had one photographer abroad. Is this the same person as this Corporal C. Newbold? And what is his full name and birth and death date?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The ship seems to have had only one official photographer at any given time; however, it was unlikely to have been Newbold at the time the ship was visiting Tonga, as he seems to have deserted the ship at Cape Town on the outward voyage, per this and other mentions online. (His first name was Caleb and he was a corporal in the Royal Engineers) According to the above source, the ship's photographer at the time of the visit to Tonga was Frederick Hodgeson, who was recruited in South Africa. He later left (or deserted) the ship at Hong Kong, but that would have been after Tonga. I can't find much more about him online than is given in the source above, except that he was back in South Africa by 1889 and is mentioned in the journal of the Society for Psychical Research as a "witness" to some spooky shenanigans in that year.(link) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

PS A lot of sources use the spelling Hodgson, rather than Hodgeson, and he seems to have been an active photographer into the 1890s at least, from mentions in passing online.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you give me a range of their years as official photographer like when they started and ended? Basically when Newbold left, when was Hodgeson recruited and when did he also leave. Not even exact dates.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

So is it Caleb Newbold (1872-1873), Frederick Hodgeson (1873-1874), and then Jesse Lay (1874-1876)?

That looks about right. You can use the Challenger expedition article to narrow the times down to a matter of days or weeks and Challenger logs are probably online somewhere. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 06:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Quote of Karl Marx on (classical) liberalism?

Hi, I have been trying to google a quote of marx on liberalism, and just couldn't find it. A lot of commentary, but no quote...

I would much appreciate any help! --MeUser42 (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you know any more about the quotation? It would help your searching if you knew any of the words used in the quote, the date and/or to whom it was said (if a spoken quotation) or when it was written (if it's a quote from one of his books). You might find something useful in the collected works of Marx and Engels. The same site has a list of Marx quotes, but no matches for 'liberal'. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"Classical liberalism" is a recently developed political term, of great usefulness for certain discussions. The term emerged after Marx, so he is unlikely to have used it, but almost certainly referred to some of its referants. Marx commonly commented on the "Manchester School," on "liberals" in power on the Continent and in the United Kingdom, and on the "Political economy" movement. It would help if you remember if the discussion relates to economic or political economic theory; the political economic disciplining of the working class in the UK; the policies of "liberal" politicians; or, some other context. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Luxembourg Continuation

Does the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg identify with the medieval County and Duchy of Luxembourg? Does it consider itself a continuation of those states or do they consider themselve a country created in the 1800s? Does the Grand Dukes consider themselves part of a line stretching back Siegfried of Luxembourg or is this a wikipedian concept? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 08:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The history page on the Grand Duke's website only goes back to 1815: (French) - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The guide in the Grand Ducal Palace, Luxembourg told us pretty much the same stuff as on the Grand Duke's website. The family looks back six generations (line Nassau-Weilburg from 1890 to present). They also show paintings of the three kings of the Nassau-Oranien line (1815-1890), who were distant relatives of the present house, considered foreigners and had Luxembourg ruled by governors. The ancient counts of Luxembourg were not mentioned at all. The city of Luxembourg, however, is very proud of its tradition extending back to Siegfried of Luxembourg, who built the castle of Lucilinburhuc on the Bock (Luxembourg) promontory. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Extracting a contiguous history for many Continental European countries prior to the 19th century is difficult because the map of Europe essentially got erased and rebooted by Napoleon and the later Congress of Vienna, and further developments like the Revolutions of 1848, German and Italian unification. The history of Luxembourg is intricately tied to that of the other Low Countries, the modern Grand Duchy was itself created in 1815 at the Congress of Vienna, though its borders were considerably re-written at the Treaty of London when the French-speaking parts of the Grand Duchy were transferred to the newly-recognized Kingdom of Belgium. The 1890 date is important because that is the date when Luxembourg got its own royal family. Prior to 1890, the King of the Netherlands was also Grand Duke of Luxembourg, but the roles were seperate (much as the Queen of the UK is also Queen of Australia and Queen of Canada). The reason the crowns seperated in 1890 was that the Netherlands and Luxembourg had different inheritance laws, Luxembourg being a former state of the Holy Roman Empire was bound to Salic law and did not allow females to inherit. After the death of William III, his daughter Wilhelmina succeeded in the Netherlands, while Adolphe, Duke of Nassau succeeded in Luxembourg. --Jayron32 19:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Olympic "rivalry" between Britain and Australia

I've seen it written that there is apparently a strong rivalry between Britain and Australia at the Olympics, but here in Britain you would be hard-pressed to find many people who were aware of this. Is this so-called "rivalry" entirely one-sided, observed in Australia but not in Britain? Or has it now been quietly forgotten in Australia, too? 87.112.129.180 (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I can think of a few Australians who might give a more definitive answer, but I'd assume it has something to do with playing a country that used to control it. Hot Stop 14:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I am aware that Australia used to be ruled from Britain, and so were many other countries. I didn't ask why such a rivalry might have arisen, anyway. I asked if there was any evidence that both parties observed it, rather than just the Australians. 87.112.129.180 (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the UK, and haven't seen or heard any mention of it here. Headlines in the UK tend to be which GB athletes have won medals, plus the more high profile of other controversies (such as the badminton "not trying hard enough" claims), and the organisational/host nation issues (such as the empty seats problems).

However, there is a perception this year that the GB team is doing unusually well, and that this is somewhow at the expense of the Australian team doing unusually badly. BBC News website in the UK did have a piece on this, and they also linked to this Australian news report. But really, as far as the UK is concerned, any mention of this comparison is swamped by other coverage. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There's quite a few news stories from 2012 which mention the rivalry, many from the British side: "the age-old sporting rivalry between Britain and Australia"[22], "GB and Australia's water polo girls to renew old rivalry"[23], "GB four enjoy Aussie rivalry"[24], "More than a century of fierce sporting rivalry"[25] as well as some internationally: "I personally believe the rivalry to watch is Great Britain vs. Australia"[26], "Australian and British team bosses squared up at London’s Olympic village in a demonstration of a friendly rivalry"[27]. The rivalry probably partly carries over from the older rivalry in cricket (The Ashes etc), which has been very fierce since the late 19th century, and rugby. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

As with many things when it comes to sport, the commentators/journalists make a lot of stuff up. Yes, the Ashes is a huge rivalry in cricket. But with other sports, there's no special rivalry between Australia and the UK compared with Australia and any other country. There's the odd comment here and there, and such things are always good media fodder for blowing up way beyond what's real. The ordinary Australian people do not know this rivalry with the UK. If it existed, it would not just come out at the Olympics, it would be live all the time. And it's not. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

In 2008, when the UK passed Australia in the medal count, some Australians claimed that the UK was earning many of its medals in "sit-down sports" (such as cycling and rowing), to which some British replied that Australia won many of its medals in the "lie-down sport" of swimming... AnonMoos (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

All I can say is that it's alive and well on my Twitter feed! It has something to do with the Ashes, as Colapeninsula says above. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And it's only the Ashes, really. See my comments above. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. According to my Twitter feed, Yorkshire has more gold medals than Australia does in these Olympics. Also according to my Twitter feed, NZ has more medals than Australia. And according to my Twitter feed, Australian TV has cut its coverage of the Olympics because Aussie teams are doing so poorly. Believe me, the rivalry between Eng and Aus is alive and well in Eng. It's present every time we play Aus at rugby league or union. It may not be as strong in Aus, but certainly over here... --TammyMoet (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's the complete reverse of the OP's premise. He was saying this rivalry is a big deal in Australia but not in Britain. It's not a big deal in Australia, apart from the Ashes. It's just not. It does appear to be a big deal in the UK, though, if your Twitter feeds are anything to go by. Yorkshire can have its little joke.

Australian TV has most certainly NOT cut its TV coverage, by the way. The fact that 9 days in we've still managed only one gold medal is a matter of extremely widespread discussion and commentary, not something we're ashamed of (apart from Emily Seebohm, who seemed to consider only winning a silver was the worst disaster of her life and brought shame on herself and her family). We've done way better in the silvers, and in total medals, than a number of countries ahead of us in the standard table, which places 1 gold ahead of 1,000 silvers. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There is also the bet between the sport's ministers: [[28]].90.214.166.145 (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I submit that the cohort of Twitter users is not representative of the Australian and British population as a whole. I'm with Jack on this. The Ashes matter. The rest is a media beatup, although many Australians like to think they should be able to beat anybody at any sport. HiLo48 (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, media beatups in sport, particularly the Olympics, deserve their own gold medals. I remember the mythical rivalry between Sebastian Coe and Steve Ovett at the Moscow 1980 Games. The media made it the BIG story of the Games, and talked endlessly about it for weeks and months beforehand. Meanwhile, Coe and Ovett themselves, on those few occasion when their opinion was considered at all relevant to the story, consistently denied there was any such huge rivalry. They were both competitors and both ran to win - surprise, surprise - but that's as far as it went. They were politely listened to, but their message was just ignored. The journalists had to get back to writing even more purple prose about their so-called fantastic rivalry. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course the people of Oz don't entertain the existence of such a rivalry now that they're not doing so well. 112.215.36.177 (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be fair comment if there was any truth to it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The decline in Australia's medal tally performance suggests there's plenty of truth to it. 112.215.36.185 (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish. The most circular (non-)argument I've ever heard. The only thing the decline in our medal tally suggests is that there's been a decline in our medal tally.

But this is all very premature; we're only a little over half way into the 2012 Games. Yes, we've done very poorly in the pool, where we've traditionally performed very well. But the final medal tally is the thing that matters when comparing countries' overall performances. Let's hang fire till then before rushing to judgmement.

Fwiw, we currently have 20 medals overall, which is already way better than our total tally at Seoul (14), Moscow (9), Montreal (5), Munich (17), Mexico City (17), Tokyo (18), Helsinki (11) or London 1948 (13). We will surely do better than Rome (22), Los Angeles (24) or Barcelona (27). That will give us a result that is at worst our 6th best since 1948, and if we take out the home advantage we had in Melbourne (35) and Sydney (58), then only Atlanta (41), Beijing (46) and Athens (49) will be ahead of us. I don't call that a half-bad result. The folly of believing the unutterable tripe the media often dishes up to us is readily apparent. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Australia was one of the first nations in the world to have a national institute of sport in the late 70's early 80's. We've been riding a huge wave of success since that time consistently punching well above our weight in the "medals per population" stakes. I think all that has happened is the initial advantage we had has now worn off, I actually read predictions of this since before the last olympics. Vespine (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

How many men commit rape?

I know this is kind of difficult to discover, and controversial, but is there some educated guess available? Someone somewhere should have researched the topic. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, you have to make your question much clearer. How many men make a habit of committing rape? How many men have ever committed rape? How many men have been convicted of rape? What proportion of the male population is involved in any of the foregoing? By country? World-wide? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Any place, US would be OK. And it's not about convictions, nor habitual rapists. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.oneinfourusa.org/statistics.php - 99% of rapists are men. As for the exact number, I'm not sure if you mean in your state, the U.S., or the world. You'll need to clarify on this. Futurist110 (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to know how many men are rapists, not how many rapists are men. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I remember reading, it may have been in Before the Dawn, that some 10% of conceptions historically have been due to rape. That doesn't give you a number of men, but it gives you a ballpark idea. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Though historically a good deal of that is due to mass rape and pillaging, which has gone out of style in most parts of the world since the end of World War II. It would not give you necessarily a good contemporary estimate. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Sadly Mr.98 mass and systematic rape have not gone out of style. It remains a tool of preference by state agencies for the disciplining of ethnic minorities. Off the top of my head, Europe in the 1990s: Rape in the Bosnian War. Our article War rape seems to cover the mass disciplinary use of rape to a certain extent. There are other incidents in the post-war period, but no mass rape seems to have occurred between Great Powers after the resolution of WWII's immediate occupations. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Besides that, from the number of women who get raped, you cannot get the number of men who rape, unless you know how many rapes each rapist commit, which is still unknown. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Also note that there is often a difference between legal rape and a moral one. In many nations, it's has been perfectly legal for a man to first marry a woman, against her will, and then force her to have sex, also against her will. In some cases the marriage step has been optional. StuRat (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

33% of men fantasize about it. 112.215.36.177 (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a nation where forced sex, outside of marriage, was legal? I know of legal systems where the evidence required of a rape is such that it is almost impossible to get a conviction (eg. only men can be considered witnesses, so the victim can't testify), but it is usually nominally illegal (although it may be more of a crime against the husband/father than the woman). There is sometimes are exception made for slaves or the women of an invaded land, where they basically aren't consider people with any rights - is that what you meant? --Tango (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Besides rape in war, which is illegal under international law but frequently legal under national laws, there are other cases. For example, in Morocco and Jordan, a man who is convicted of rape may be excused if he then marries the victim (and this can again be a forced marriage): [29]. Also, for a historical case, there was droit du seigneur, where the victims were serfs, rather than slaves. StuRat (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Above comments are very gynocentric. While not technically legal, the state relies on prison rape to accentuate the severity of punishments of incarceration in jurisdictions where hard labour and corporal punishment cannot serve that purpose. 112.215.36.177 (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, see prima nocta. 112.215.36.185 (talk) 05:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The best data you are going to get is for convictions/prosecutions, but for at least some countries, that is believed to be completely off the mark. Listening to one of the NPR weekend shows (I forget which one), it has been estimated that 25% of men in South Africa, over 12 million, have committed rape at some point, and half of those have raped more than one woman. Yet only ~50,000 rape cases are pursued annually in South Africa. And in the less developed parts of India, it was estimated that there are enough rapists to place at least one in every household, but looking at the criminal convictions for rape would belie that fact. We do have articles such as Rape in the United States and Rape statistics, which itself has links to similar articles about other countries. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

How can anyone get Jimbo Wales to speak at the Landon Lecture series?

This is a series of lectures made by highly prominent individuals (including two sitting Presidents at Kansas State University. I believe it is high time that Jim Wales was brought in to speak, as there have been a dearth of Landon Lectures lately. --70.168.121.147 (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

He has a talk page, innit? μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

First you'd have to get KSU to invite him. Get in touch with them, not us. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Polynesian researches, during a residence of nearly six years in the South Sea Islands' Volume 2

Does anyone know what event is depicted in the title image of the William Ellis (1833) Polynesian researches, during a residence of nearly six years in the South Sea Islands, Volume 2, Fisher, Son & Jackson, shown here? It seems to be a conflict or war. The previous image has thte title The Cession of the District of Matavai in the Island of Otaheite to Captain James Wilson for the Use of the Missionaries but this one doesn't. Also can anyone make out the engraver/artist.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Kavebear. Just a thought, but looking at the date on the image (and some quick Googling) suggests the image is from an American reprint of the book, dating 4 years after the original publication by the London Publishers Fisher, Son and Jackson in 1829. (Original here). There is a possibility that the image has no real connection to any events in the book; rather it might be an exercise of artistic license by the publishers. However, I do see the name H. Corbould as the original artist, who quite possibly might be the artist Henry Corbould. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

(PS) The engravers names on the right are "Illman & Pilbrow", Thomas Illman and Edward Pilbrow, who apparently did a lot of engravings for various New York publishers; the original artist is H. Corbould, who I am fairly certain is Henry Corbould.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that only the 1833 reprint had this illustration while the 1829 version did not. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

http://histoire.assemblee.pf/articles.php?id=360 calls it "Scène de la bataille de Fei Pi (Scene of the Battle of Fei Pi)", but from personal experience, I know some of the captions on this site are unreliable. It really sucks that their are no records on the title of the engraving like there is on the other ones. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Why only 2?

In human history, there have only been 2 diseases that are eradicated. They are smallpox and rinderpest. What I don't understand is why don't we try to eradicate as many diseases as possible? Why we only eradicated 2 diseases? I know we have vaccines for a large portion of diseases out there now. What are we waiting for? Is it because of the money problem? Aren't human lives worth more than money? 174.20.39.60 (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Eradication of infectious diseases gives you information about eradication efforts. Some diseases are on the way of eradication, however, I suppose the last mile is quite tough. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There were many short-lived epidemics of past centuries which briefly caused havoc, then didn't recur... AnonMoos (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't think of a good article, since you are asking a negative question. But there is a general lack of profit motive drug shortage, the problem of international boundaries and local inertia, the fact that carriers often don't care or comply HIV, Tuberculosis, the problem of resistance Gonorrhea, and that people refuse inocculation Whooping Cough, Measles. μηδείς (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And many diseases can't be eradicated, because they have many strains and/or are constantly mutating, like the flu. StuRat (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Many diseases have animal hosts in the wild and would be very difficult to eradicate. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

To answer your last question, money only has value because of the things you can buy with it. If you buy one thing with it, you can't buy something else. The cost of eradicating diseases can be extremely high, so what you you rather not have instead? Education? National defence? Other aspects of healthcare? It sounds great to say that lives are infinitely valuable, but in reality it doesn't work that way - people do put finite value on their lives and on the lives of others. For example, people are willing to do dangerous jobs in order to earn more money than they could be doing a safe job - if their life was infinitely valuable, then even a small increase in the risk of death in return for a much larger wage wouldn't be worth it, yet people still do those jobs. --Tango (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If people assigned an infinite value to their lives, they wouldn't do any work at all, since the fractions of their lives spent working would be worth more than any monetary compensation in the form of wages. 112.215.36.177 (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

There's one thing I never understood about them. They are one of the few denominations I have heard of that made their own version of the Bible, which is also the only modern Bible I am aware of whose authors are anonymous. But why does it seem that whenever skeptics of the religion find "flaws" in their doctrines, they apparently change the scriptures instead of apologists trying to reconcile the differences? That is, why do they seem to change the verses in order to fit the doctrine, rather than the other way around? If other denominations or biblical scholars question some of their beliefs, why don't they just drop or modify them? I would find their behavior rather ironic for a religion that started as a bible study group. I'm not saying that JW is a false religion, I'm just asking for possible motive behind this behavior. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you mean -- The "New World Translation" has some extremely disputed translated passages (John 1:1 etc.), but JW's don't make up scriptural verses from scratch. For a group to arbitrarily change around the Bible (going way beyond an arguably dodgy "interpretive" translation to reauthor Biblical books) would be to make itself a prominent target for vilification and scorn by evangelical/fundamentalist Christians. The Mormons supposedly theoretically reject the inspired status of Song of Songs, but still include it in the Bibles they distribute... AnonMoos (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

On what do you base your belief that "they apparently change the scriptures" "in order to fit the doctrine"?

—Wavelength (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

For example, they changed all instances of "cross" to "torture stake" due to their belief that Jesus was executed on a stake rather than a cross. They also changed "coming" to "presence" due to their belief that Jesus had already arrived on Earth in the 1800s. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 -- those are all dodgy interpretative translations, while the rhetoric in your original post led others to think that you were accusing JW's of making up stuff at random... AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And they are not all more "dodgy" than more conventional translations. Many features from the New Word Translation also occur in other independent translations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The JW's are far from alone when it comes to dodgy interpretative translations of scripture, but they have attained a certain frequency and concentration of them beyond most others... AnonMoos (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has information about the torture instrument at Crucifixion#Cross shape (version of 16:42, 3 August 2012). The two images are by Justus Lipsius (1547 to 1606). More information is in the article "Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion" (version of 20:40, 28 July 2012).

Wikipedia has information about the second "parousia" at Second Coming#Jehovah's Witnesses (version of 14:38, 5 August 2012). More information is in the article "Parousia" (version of 12:53, 8 July 2012).

—Wavelength (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There is information about σταυρός (stauros) at http://mlbible.com/matthew/10-38.htm and http://biblelexicon.org/matthew/10-38.htm and http://concordances.org/greek/4716.htm and http://concordances.org/greek/strongs_4716.htm.

There is information about παρουσία (parousia) at http://mlbible.com/matthew/24-3.htm and http://biblelexicon.org/matthew/24-3.htm and http://concordances.org/greek/3952.htm and http://concordances.org/greek/strongs_3952.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There is an article "TORTURE STAKE" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004456. There is an article "PRESENCE" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003548.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There do seem to be parts of the Bible that could use changing, like where God orders the Jews to commit genocide [30]. So, I'd change or scrap large portions of the Bible. StuRat (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Herem" war is described fairly briefly in the Old Testament in passages concerning some groups which were considered to be blocking the Israelites from core areas of the Holy Land assigned to them, before the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel. If you imagine that "large portions" of the Bible are devoted to Herem war, then you've never read much of it... AnonMoos (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

(So the lesson is that you can only commit genocide if you want to steal someone else's land ?) Genocide is just one of the many things that could be scrapped from the Bible. The "begats", for example, while at least not teaching us to be evil, are incredibly boring and utterly useless in instructing people how to live their lives. StuRat (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That's nice -- the Bible describes cruel practices in one particular phase of Israelite history more than 3,000 years ago (not setting it up as a general rule of conduct). It may be shocking or reprehensible, but your pattern of rushing to condemn without bothering to understand does not impress me. By the way, genealogy was the way that the ancient Israelites understood their place within their nation and within the world. The tabula gentium of Genesis chapter 10 is a kind of map of the world as understood by the Israelites ca. 600 B.C. Actual diagrammatic visual maps were somewhat rudimentary or restricted in purpose at that time, so it was expressed in genealogy... AnonMoos (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you read my link ? That's just one of many examples. The Flood is another. Supposedly everyone but Noah's family was evil and had to be drowned, including the children. Similar destruction happened to Sodom and Gomorrah. Of course, I don't believe those storeis are true, but it's still an example of the lesson from God that it's OK to kill off anyone you think of as evil, including children. StuRat (talk) 04:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Biblical criticism doesn't come very well from somebody who doesn't know too much or care too much about the Bible. If you want to indulge yourself with a generalized rant about the inherent evil of all religion, then there are plenty of other places to do it. And since I was not particularly impressed with the style, attitude, or factual content of your comments on this thread, why would I click on your link?? -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

How did you assess the factuality of his comments without looking at the reference he cited? 112.215.36.185 (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That site is cherry picking quotes without context... And if you would look later on, you'd see no genocide occured, and many native groups remained and lived there. --Activism1234 04:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

But god was not pleased... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, Jehovah's Witnesses DO indeed sometimes change their doctorines. Even the notorious Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions issue has had more then a couple of revisions, none as far as I know involved modifying their scriptures. Vespine (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Locations for Olympics

I know they bid to decide the locations for every Olympic games but I don't know what they actually mean by bid? So is it like whichever country can bid with the most money win? What determine the result? How did a country eventually win the bid?174.20.39.60 (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

In theory, the decision is based on who can put on the best Olympics (this is why you don't often see them in third world nations) with some value placed on new locations (that's why they don't just stick to the same old location). So, number of stadiums, hotel rooms, public transportation, etc., would all figure in. Unfortunately, there has been corruption in the selection process, so bribery is also sometimes a factor. StuRat (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Politics plays a role. Not sure why, but the IOC seemed to very deliberately yank Obama around in the process of the selection for the 2016 Olympics -- they made an ostentatious point of telling him that Chicago's bid might fail if he didn't show up personally, then when he did show up, they made an ostentatious point of giving him the bum's rush and dumping Chicago's bid in the first round. Hope they don't need any favors from him... AnonMoos (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, after the London olympics bid and Tony Blair, having your leader show up began to be seen as important. Regardless of whether this was a good thing, if this was how the IOC members felt, it seems to me it was fair to point out to the US that if they thought they were special and didn't have to do what everyone else was doing to win, they weren't. However having your leader show up was still only a portion of the bid. You can't blame the OIC for quicky rejecting the US if the rest of the bid was crappier then other candidates. If the US felt that doing what every other country was doing would somehow give them a better chance then the other coutries (and even when they did do it only at the last minute), that was surely their own misconception. Our articles list several problems with the US bid, only one (the amount of money going to the USOC) of which could really be called politics (and like it of not, taking more money then others feel is fair, is going to cause resentment). The article on the Chicago bid in particular notes that it may not have even been intended by the IOC members for Chicago to go out. Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And yet the IOC always makes a point of stressing the Games are awarded to a city, not a country. On that basis, they ought to be satisfied with the mayor. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That may be the official claim of the IOC, but it doesn't mean the IOC members who actually vote share the same view. Besides as with so many things the IOC claims about the unimportance of countries (or more accurately NOCs), long before the London bid the significance of the country involved has been clear. E.g. the bidding taking place in a non candidate country, the clear reluctance to avoid a the olympics to the same country too often. (The same way that despite the official view that atheletes not countries compete, the IOC posts medal tallys, atheletes march in under their country flag, the flag is raised along with the anthem for the medalist, in many sports the number of competitors per country is limited, the IOC pushed for women atheletes from all countries, earlier Chinese bids being rejected for human rights reasons, etc etc.) The more accurate view is that while cities are competing for and ultimately win the bids, the countries the cities are in are still a big factor. So having your countries leader support your cities bid should hardly be surprising. (If the Americans are unable to see this, again this is ultimately their fault.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

N.B. I just wanted to mentioned that I'm not suggesting politics is not a big factor in the bidding process. It clearly is. I was only pointing out that I don't see much evidence the IOC was intentional trying to dick around Obama. The nature of the bidding process means no one wants to reveal too much information on a countries chances early on, and in any case, there is some evidence minds are not always made up until fairly late in the game. So it's hardly surprising if some IOC members pointed out to the US that if they wanted to have any chance of winning (or perhaps wanted the IOC members to actually look at their bid seriously), they better get with the programme (again regardless of whether the requirement is a good idea). But then when they actually seriously looked at the bid (perhaps after the US had finally gotten with the programme), they realised it was still too crap to win. (Although as I pointed out, it's entirely unclear whether Chicago was really rejected at the first round intentional; or it's more of a accident from voting blocs and the politics about which specific country to support, since there's no actual 'oppose' vote.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

See for example Bids for Olympic Games and Bids for the 2012 Summer Olympics. You are apparently thinking of meaning 1 at wiktionary:bid#Noun. Meaning 3 is more relevant. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

August 6

Countries where nationalism or patriotism is/was discouraged.

I was wondering if there are/were any countries where, at some point in time, nationalism and/or patriotism, or at least ultra-nationalism and ultra-patriotism, is/was frowned upon, or at least wasn't that prominent. Have there ever been such places? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by ulta-nationalism. If you mean groups like the British National Party or the English Defence League in the UK, and equivalents elsewhere, then they are often very much frowned upon by the mainstream. --Tango (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As in the ones that many Americans seem to follow, especially the political analysts and the right-wing politicians. Also, that includes the attitude of calling your country the "greatest". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The Soviets under Lenin and Stalin were antinationalist due to promotion of the ideals of the international brotherhood of workers. There was an abrupt change after the nazis invaded though, with Stalin calling on the soldiers to act in defence of Mother Russia. 112.215.36.177 (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure that's a good example. Certain nationalisms were discouraged, while others were carefully channeled and controlled, but Soviet patriotism and blind faith in the leadership of the Soviet Communist party were strongly inculcated. By the way, one feature of Stalin's Soviet Union was that certain passages of Marx, Engels, and Lenin on Tsarist Russian imperialism were not allowed to be printed! (So much for the "complete" edition of Marx's works.) AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

See Russian nationalism and Socialism in One Country. It's the best example of the state rejecting nationalism that you're ever likely to find. 112.215.36.185 (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Also relevent is Bourgeois nationalism, which in theory Marxist/communist countries would ascribe to; the idea that nationalism was anti-communist by its nature. The ideal Marxist state was anti-nationalist. Sadly, in practice this worked out very differently. At first, the Soviet Union tried to support world-wide communism by promoting local nationalism in its various constituent republics, see Korenizatsiya. This didn't last long, and instead it proceeded on a policy of Russification. --Jayron32 06:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In Britain during much of the 1920's and 1930's, there was a strong reaction against the propaganda and jingoistic patriotism of WW1 (contrasted with the meaninglessness of much of the WW1 fighting), so an ostentatious anti-patriotism was fashionable in certain university circles, and it was famously debated at the Oxford Union that they would "in no circumstances fight for... King and Country". Kim Philby came out of this environment. AnonMoos (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There have been plenty of self-hating countries, Weimar Germany, Vichy France, Britain under the Labour Party (UK). Germany and Japan banned the symbols of their prior regimes after WWII. They no longer sing Deutschland Ueber Alles do they? Although that is due, of course, to the US-lead victory of the allies, the US being, objectively, the greatest country in world history, with no need to prove it. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"The Nation" repeatedly reconfigures itself in relation to perceived or actual deficiencies. Consider, for example, the construction of appropriate German behaviour prior to 1914, prior to 1930, prior to 1945 and prior to 1989. One example to consider is the changes of meaning in "Australianness" in the past 130 years. Previous configurations of Australianness such as the Dutiful Daughter, the Authorised War Larrikin, New Australian-ness, or Multiculturalism come and go. Below them seethes changing ethnic and racial conceptions of the nation. In many cases competing concepts of nationalism contend. In the 1940s through the 1980s the Australian Communist Party championed a nationalist Australian identity, made from a gum leaf harmonica and Eureka stockade (without Lambing Flat riots)—meanwhile the Returned and Services League of Australia commemorated our valiant dead and their noble sacrifice beneath aging posters of Queen Victoria the Second. Very different nationalisms within a single "nation." Were the CPA anti-patriotic because they wanted President Larrikin instead of QEII? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

United States Population Growth By Region

How come there is much faster population growth in the Western U.S. (plus Texas) and in the Southeastern United States than in the rest of the United States? Not only is this happening right now, but this has consistently been the case since at least the Great Depression and WWII. Futurist110 (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with your timing. It seems to me the decline of the rust belt is a consequence of the US moving from an industrial economy to a service economy, since most industry was in the North Central and North East. On the plus side, global warming may push people back up north, as the South becomes unbearable. StuRat (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Another reason is that recent immigration to the US has been more from tropical areas than the traditional northern European nations, and people tend to move to where the weather is like home. StuRat (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We have an article Sun Belt... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Air conditioning. --Jayron32 04:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And insecticide. Neutrality^talk 04:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

See also list of U.S. states by population growth rate, mean center of United States population, and Demographic history of the United States (the latter being a rather terrible article, unfortunately). Neutrality^talk 04:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the Sun Belt, the U.S. population growth isn't purely divided along the Sun Belt lines. Utah, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and Colorado are above the Sun Belt, yet also grow much faster than the national average. Meanwhile Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama are on the Sun Belt but are growing slower than the national average. As for my timing, it is based on facts, considering that most states in the North, Midwest, and "Interior South" (Southern states which don't border the Atlantic Ocean) experienced their peak number of Representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, or 1950s. Futurist110 (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Urban legends or real?

Are these two stories [31] true?A8875 (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Those stories are touching, but not particularly incredible, so I see no reason to doubt them. StuRat (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The bear story reminds me of one of the plots in Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain. —Tamfang (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We have an article about Sadako Sasaki with links to several related articles. Fred Small also wrote a song about her.[32] 67.117.146.199 (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I want to create a page for a sculptor

My grandfather is a sculptor in Cd. Juarez Mexico who has made several statues for the government in Juarez city, Chihuahua city, El Paso, TX even Chicago.

I'd like to document his work and his life as well as put pictures of his statues. How can I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.167.113 (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

First, read the guidelines to see if your grandfather is notable. If so, you can use WP:YFA or WP:RA to either create the article yourself or ask for someone else to create it. In either case, also read the policy about conflict of interest. In the future, you should ask this sort of question on the help desk at WP:HD RudolfRed (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Rudy, ever heard of "don't bite the newbies? Conflict of interest? Wow. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what is biting about my response. I pointed the OP to two resources useful for creating new pages. The OP is related to the subject of the proposed new article, which introduces the possibility of conflict of interest, so I pointed to the relevent page. RudolfRed (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome, prospective editor. You'll need some sort of references, books or periodicals, that mention his work. So long as there are reliable sources that show he is notable you can create an article based on them. You will find doing so easier if you create an account for yourself. Once you have done this, search for his name as you would want it to appear in the Article, say John Q. Public. When you do so, unless we have an article on someone else with the same name, it will offer you the option of creating an article on him. Any instructions you need you will find here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents

The only real mistake would be to create an article without any published sources as references. (They can be published on line, but be related to something more than a blog.) If you don't have sources, someone is liable to nominate your work for deletion pretty quickly. If you have further questions, follow the help link I gave. Use the chat option if you want immediate help. This page is for research questions, so ask us if you need us to look something up for you. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Bonaly skating video, what is the music?

[33] Thanks. 67.117.146.199 (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Echo Nest says it's Georgopoulus, A. as Arp (2007) "Odyssey (For Bas Jan Ader)" on In Light (San Francisco: Smalltown Supersound), but Amazon's track preview suggests that might be a bad match. 70.59.11.32 (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Presidents of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation

Are the Presidents of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation given any respect or acknowledgement anymore and were they ever in the past? It seems like they are largely forgotten. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

They were all very famous at the time, but the presidents of the Congress of the Confederation had absolutely no executive power, and their duties to preside over the congressional assembly were almost always delegated, so they didn't really do anything. It was just a ceremonial role. The colonial speakers were the actual executives until the Constitution was ratified. 70.59.11.32 (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)