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 18

Common Law/Modern law

what is the difference between common law and modern law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cluelessnskool (talk • contribs) 05:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Common law is not opposed to modern law, but to statutory law. Common law is a set of precedents in the Anglo-Saxon law system going back to Germanic law precedents such as weregeld (which is long unhonored). Non-common-law systems go back to statutory law which declares itself the sole law, such as the Napoleonic code and the inquisitorial system where judges sit as prosecutors rather than objective mediators between prosecutors and defense counsel. μηδείς (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Might want to double check the historical and substantive function of the magistrate and the justice of the peace in terms of common law lacking an inquisitorial function; but, otherwise pretty good. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Once you prosecute 203 for his blatant plagiary below I will discuss how district attorneys and administrative law judges have replaced magistrates, seen as corrupt royal surrogates, in American law. μηδείς (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Right after I file suit for slander. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

At best, you can claim ignorance, and say you violated WP:OVERLINK due to ignorance, not having read my response at all. But your indentation is a prima facie indication that you read the posts above yours. So good luck with the claim of innocence. :) μηδείς (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I read your response, but I opted to write my own since I didn't think yours was adequate for several reasons. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) If that's a homework question, it's a bad one, because those aren't opposites. Common laws are those developed by years of tradition and court rulings, as opposed to legislative acts. However, modern laws can be either type, or, more often, a mixture. StuRat (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The modern law system in most English speaking countries is based on common law and supplemented (or in some cases invalidated) by statutes. Common law is the body of law that is set by precedent. Statutes are the law made by the legislature (congress, parliament, etc.), and approved by the executive (president, Queen, King, governor general, etc). As an example, see how statutory rape contrasts with rape generally. Common law systems also generally incorportate the adversarial system of judicial process, where both parties argue their case to an impartial judge. Common law systems often also incorporate a jury for serious criminal and in some cases also civil matters. Modern law in countries with legal traditions primarily sourced from the Napoleonic code have no common law. Their law is purely statutory. These juridicitons generally use the inquisitorial system of judicial process where the judge or a panel of judges investigates facts on their own. They don't generally have juries, though some do have the similar concept of lay judges. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Most European countries using civil law have long since changed to an adversarial system, so that is not a useful distinction between common and civil law anymore. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed. The article you linked to says, "It holds case law to be secondary and subordinate to statutory law, and the court system is usually inquisitorial, unbound by precedent, and composed of specially trained judicial officers with a limited authority to interpret law." 149.135.147.67 (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

As uncited as the statement you quoted. However you are correct, and I will amend my statement to only include the Scandinavian countries, which, though having civil law, changed to adversarial systems around 1900. My meaning was just to make clear that there isn't a clear inquisitorial/adversarial dichotomy between civil law and common law. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I dimly remember seeing an article within the last few years about teaching Italian(?) judges and lawyers how an adversarial system works. —Tamfang (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

President Dole and his Cabinet

Can anybody help me identify who are the individuals in this image? The only figures I can guess for sure are Sanford B. Dole (center), Samuel Mills Damon (far left) and William Owen Smith (far right). I want to say that the man to the right of Dole is Lorrin A. Thurston but he has much more hair and his eyes look different than Thurston's. Also I don't think any of the three are James A. King or Peter Cushman Jones show in another photograph of Dole's executive council. Any help will be appreciated.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no doubt that the man on the far left is James A. King. It's pretty clear just from looks but if you need individual elements, blow up the photograph to full size; look at the eyes and the eyebrow (the giant hands are another minor detail). The general look but especially the eyes for Thurston are pretty unmistakable. The photograph from his article has a circa date and because of the hair, I'm guessing its a few years later but it's him. But after quite a bit of looking I cannot track down who the individual is next to Smith.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm – could it be F.W. McChesney? (Process of elimination and there an illustration at the bottom of this page not good enough to tell at all if it's him, but he does have a full head of hair and mustache like in the photograph.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

History of lockable doors - who had them?

I'm curious about the spread of lockable doors (and chests), over civilization-spans. I'm looking for any maps/figures/commentary, that give details of which demographics (of any area/culture/era) had a "lockable front door" over the course of recorded history. Ie. In the year (-500BC, 640AD, 1200AD, 1600AD etc) did an average labourer/baker/magistrate/citizen in country x, carry a padlock- or house-key around all day?

(No info found via lock (device) or locksmithing. A brief google found a few hints and some history, eg. Schlage's History of Locks, but no details on how widespread it was amongst any general populations.)

Thanks =) -- Quiddity (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Our Padlock article has some information; "The earliest positive evidence of padlocks comes from the Roman Era, 500 BC–300 AD. They were known in early times by merchants traveling the ancient trade routes to Asia and China. Padlocks with spring tine mechanisms have been found in York, England at the Jorvik Viking settlement - dated 850 AD." As York was a bit of a frontier town rather than a high status capital, I suspect that their use would have been widespread in 9th century Europe. Alansplodge (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There were also some more lo-tech ways to secure a door, such as having to reach thru a hole to undo a latch, perhaps with a watchdog on the other side who would tear the hand off of anyone but his master. StuRat (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I wonder when they started placing locks on restroom doors. Must be a modern practice. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, restrooms are a fairly modern practice. Outhouses may well have had locks, but probably more to make sure the door stayed shut and to stop animals getting in than to preserve privacy, I would guess (the design of outhouses is usually dictated by practicality). Our article does discuss the design of outhouse doors, but doesn't mention locks. --Tango (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Previous generations didn't share our squeamishness about bodily functions. At the Jorvik Viking Centre (home of the padlock mentioned above), they have a reconstruction of a Viking latrine - not much need for a lock on that one. Even more sociable was the Roman public toilet, where you could have a chat with the 15 or 20 complete strangers who were using it at the same time - examples survive from Turkey (pictured) to Hadrian's Wall. Into the 20th century, two-seater latrines could be found on farms across Europe and North America, although I suspect that they only had multiple occupancy en famille. Alansplodge (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

2-seater latrines aren't as bad as 2-story latrines. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

And don't forge the Love Toilet: [1]. StuRat (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"The oldest known lock was found by archeologists in the Khorsabad palace ruins near Nineveh. The lock was estimated to be 4,000 years old. It was a forerunner to a pin tumbler type of lock, and a common Egyptian lock for the time. This lock worked using a large wooden bolt to secure a door, which had a slot with several holes in its upper surface. The holes were filled with wooden pegs that prevented the bolt from being opened."--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

From that description I'm not sure if that qualifies as a lock. How were the pegs removed ? If by use of a key, then, yes, it was a lock. If they are just permanent, or must be removed by hand, then I wouldn't call that a lock, it sounds more like the cotter pin on an axle: [2]. StuRat (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

More detail on the Khorsabad lock here; " The key, also of wood, was of such dimensions that it had to be carried on the shoulder. This key operates a wooden bar, which slides from right to left and enters a square mortise in the wall." Alansplodge (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Prior to the 19th century most houses were both places to sleep and eat, and also, places to work and conduct social life. Houses were normally permanently staffed by men, women and children. Patriarchal heads of household would only need to lock things against people who would violate their rule or order either from inside or outside the house. Given that locks did not provide security against determined invaders, they were a poor choice for many uses. Correspondingly, given that at various times human labour was "cheap," often it was more sensible to maintain a body of armed men bound to the head of household if he possessed anything he did not want the rest of the household to possess. Locks and strongboxes have limited uses in such circumstances. The separation of production from domesticity changed this slightly. As did the increasing price of labour. But generally when considering the pre-modern, ask yourself: why buy a lock when you can keep a child or woman minding it? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Mhm, that's along the lines of what I was guessing, but when did that change (for the average citizen) ? When an area goes through industrial revolution? -- Quiddity (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

When Department IIa of capitalist production develops proletarian needs beyond food and shelter. There's not much point busting down the door defended by 3 year olds, when all the adults and older children are out working, when there's no furniture and they've burnt the floorboards. So somewhere between proletarianisation and kicking the women out of the factories—probably as people stopped burning their furniture over winter and started to accumulate furniture, food stocks, tobacco stocks, and small items convertable to cash. I'd suggest that even then, few people locked their houses because they'd be commonly occupied—you get this in modern proletarian communities where the elderly lament, "Back in those days we never even locked our doors." Fifelfoo (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That's only considering the wealthy. Commoners didn't have a staff. If they didn't want somebody stealing their stuff when they went out, they had to take it with them, hide it, etc., since locking a thatched hut or equivalent isn't going to work, as anyone could break through the wall or roof. StuRat (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Commoners had a wife and children. The very point of gesturing directly at the oikonomy. I'd suggest you read some histories of peasant women's working lives. Plus they didn't have moveable property worth stealing given the tightness of communities. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

In the Iliad, Hera's chamber (built by Hephaestus) has a lock (book xiv). So the idea was current at least by the 8th century BC. Zoonoses (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Eyelashes stuck behind the eye

Just today an eyelash came loose and touched my eye. I tried to get it out but it almost got too far behind the eye. Luckily I managed to get it out. So now I'm curious, presumably many eyelashes eventually come lose and wiggle their way behind the eye one way or another. What happens to them? Do they accumulate or does the body have some way of decomposing them? ScienceApe (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, there is no unobstructed passage right round to the back of the eyeball; the continuation of the inner surface of the eyelids and the outer surface (cornea) of the eyeball join up a little beyond where one can (without instruments and the risk of injury) see/access. I've been looking for a cross-sectional diagram in eye-related Wikipedia articles and their links that clearly shows this, but haven't succeeded so far. Anybody know of one?

Any eyelashes or other debris that finds its way towards the back of the "pocket" these surfaces form is usually removed quite quickly by the movements of the eye and the washing action of tears (which is their primary function). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.109 (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Eye irritants can be removed using an eyewash which is availible over-the-counter from any pharmacy. If you are concerned about anything in your eye, you should contact a qualified medical professional, and not ask people on the internet for help. --Jayron32 17:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I doubt the eyelid is connected directly to the cornea. More likely the sclera. Edison (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've occasional had a contact lens decide to "go for a swim". I've learned from experience not to try to dig it out, as it will return to the front in short order on it's own. StuRat (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Learn conjunctiva. A thin mucous membrane (essentially very thin skin contiguous with the cornea) separates front from back. In "runny eye", an irritant can even cause large amounts of fluid to build up behind the conjunctiva, which temporarily becomes more visibly separate from the sclera. It can even become wrinkled with age. Wnt (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

What classical(?) wallpaper pattern is this?

A thousand pardons for interrupting your Saturday afternoon with this request. There is a computer game which features on the protagonist's apartment walls a [wallpaper of interest]. Can someone advise me the name of the pattern or any class of patterns to which it belongs that I may then proceed to find furnishings which feature the same or a similar pattern? --2.97.21.248 (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it has a specific name for the patter, but it looks to me like in the style of the "Second Empire" style, see this google image search, which turns up similar patterns. Second Empire refers specifically to a style which developed in the 1860s, during the Second French Empire. See also Second Empire architecture. --Jayron32 18:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Who is responsible for introducing bills in U.S. congress?

Recently I ent a letter to my U. S. senator and the response I got was a thank you and that he would keep it in mind as he was voting. The subject matter I'm sure would take introducing a new bill, but by the sounds of it he is not the one responsible for that. So if not him, or exclusively him, who else would it be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.71.234 (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Any Senator can introduce a bill to the Senate and any Representative can introduce a bill to the House. However, writing a bill is a lot of work, and judging from the bad bills we've gotten in the past, many aren't very good at it. And, nobody wants to put in all that work for a bill that won't pass anyway, so they are quite reluctant to do so. So, the brush-off you got from him really means "it's not worth my time to introduce such a bill". StuRat (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Also note that under the Standing Rules of the United States Senate merely introducing a bill doesn't mean that it will even be voted on. I'm not sure exactly how the authority is derived, but the order of business seems to be set by the leader of the majority through the President of the United States Senate. After a bill is introduced, it is usually sent to one of the United States Senate committees for investigation and amendment. If the committee so decides, then the bill can be returned to the full senate who may further modify the bill. If there is an agreement to do so, the bill can either be debated on the floor and then voted on, or sent to another committee. There's usually more bills in any given legislative session than there is time to investigate, debate and vote on them all, so most bills just "die in committee", that is, the committee doesn't have the time nor the inclination to investigate them fully and make a decision as to whether to return it the the full senate, so it just gets forgotten about. You senator, particularly if they're a junior senator, is not going to introduce bills that don't have some particular importance, that is, they are either likely to pass, or they're going to generate attention. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

According to Article 7, Section 1 of the US Constitution, "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." So if your proposal involves raising revenue he is indeed unable to propose it (in a useful way at least) and you might want to write to your Representative as well. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Puyi's apple

Okay, so I was a watching this documentary on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG5qIKvlblE&feature=relmfu, and in the last few minutes the narrator said that Emperor Puyi was eating apples when the news of his eviction from the Forbidden City was told to him and that the apple he dropped was picked up and later documented when the palace was reopened for the public. My question is how long was the apple on the ground?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Mayans and Aztec

Did aztec and mayans ever clash, was there ever any war, did they traded with each other were they even aware of each others existance. --86.41.80.243 (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

They had contact with one another and they influenced each other's technology and religion. There were conflicts between the different groups in the pre-Columbian era, but it's important to note that these civilizations were comprised of city states that would fight each other, much like the ancient Greeks. So it's much more complicated than a "Aztecs vs Mayan" scenario. The details of much of their history was lost when the conquistadors decided the Mayan historical texts were heretical and burned them 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

86.41.80.243 -- There were many cultural contacts and commonalities within the general "mesoamerican" zone. However, the Aztec empire didn't start significantly expanding until about 60 years before Columbus, while the classical Maya civilization had collapsed about 500 years before that, so that the peak periods of the two civilizations didn't overlap. Both the Aztecs and the post-classical Maya revered the Toltecs... -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Taliban, al Qaeda and the U.S.

Is it true that the U.S. created and funded, and trained the Taliban and al Qaeda? Nienk (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That's overstating it a bit. The US, Pakistan, and others funded al Qaeda, back when it was working to drive the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. The US stopped funding it after the Soviets left, but the Pakistanis and others continued to fund it, in some cases up to the present. See al Qaeda and Taliban for details. StuRat (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That is overstating it more than "a bit". Even Stu's answer is an oversimplification. Here's a quick but more complete answer. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the US channeled money through Pakistan to the (at the time mostly Afghani) Mujahadeen (not al-Qaeda) whose goal was solely to oust the Soviets. Bin Laden started an organization in Pakistan in the mid-1980s called Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK) to recruit and train foreign (non-Afghans) fighters to join the Mujahadeen. He funded his efforts mostly with his own millions and Saudi money and eventually received material and most likely logistical support from Pakistan. A few years later he began recruiting in the US as well. In the late 80s toward the end of Soviet War, MAK set up camps in Afghanistan. After the war (and after the US discontinued its support of the Mujahadeen), many Mujahadeen fighters desired to "take the struggle" to other parts of the world and MAK, working with Mujahadeen leaders (particularly Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whom it is known received support from the CIA), absorbing their fighters and resources and eventually evolving into al-Qaeda. So the US never created nor funded al-Qaeda directly (although it is unknown what assistance was given to MAK in the early years) but it did inherit money and assets that the US and other nations provided for the Mujahadeen. As for the Taliban, that was one of many groups that vied for power in the chaos in the aftermath of the Soviet withdrawal. It was heavily funded by Pakistan and the Saudis but never the US, although it can be argued that since the US supports and gives aid to both Pakistan and Saudi Arabi, some of the money was bound to have originated in the US. As you can see it is a complicated topic that plays out (often covertly) over decades and there is no simple answer.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 23:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

StuRat's answer is simply wrong. It's highly dubious whether the U.S. did anything more than informally coordinate logistics and supply with Bin Laden's organization in the 1980s (which was not al-Qaeda or terrorist at that time, and which had plenty of donated Arab money, and so was not dependent on the U.S.), while the Taliban did not coalesce as a significant grouping until after the U.S. was largely withdrawn and disengaged from Afghanistan. What is true is that Pakistan always supported the most reactionary and extremist Islamist factions in Afghanistan (first Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, then later the Taliban), and made it a condition of the U.S. being able to work in Pakistan to support the mujahideen that significant funding must go to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The United States is guilty of agreeing to a Pakstani bargain to funnel large amounts of money to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (which did absolutely no good whatsoever in Afghanistan), but innocent of everything mentioned in Nienk's and StuRat's posts... AnonMoos (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The US did fund Afghan extremists at the time, see Operation Cyclone. Yes, they were the precursors to al Qaeda, not al Qaeda proper, but this is quite irrelevant. And saying they weren't terrorists is a matter of opinion. To the Soviet Union, they very much were. As our article says: "Critics of U.S. foreign policy consider Operation Cyclone to be substantially responsible for setting in motion the events that led to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 commonly known as the term blowback. The early foundations of al-Qaida were allegedly built in part on relationships and weaponry that came from the billions of dollars in U.S. support for the Afghan mujahadin during the war to expel Soviet forces from that country." Yes, some disagree, but you can't say I'm "simply wrong" unless you have some really strong evidence that I, and everyone else who believes so, are wrong. StuRat (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. did agree to a Pakistani bargain that large amounts of money be channeled to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, but broad sweeping assertions about U.S. funding of al-Qaeda are wrong. Al-Qaeda was only just starting to be organized in 1989 when (according to the article which you yourself linked to) "American funding of Afghan resistance leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and his Hezbi Islami party was cut off immediately". Furthermore, al-Qaeda was a predominantly Arab organization, not an Afghanistani organization. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar had some kind of association with Osama bin Laden at the end of the 1980s and early 1990s, but Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was not a "precursor" of al-Qaeda in any meaningful sense. According to Maktab al-Khidamat, the bin Laden organization of the 1980s didn't take a turn towards terrorism until ca. November 24, 1989 -- and didn't receive U.S. funding before that time, anyway. What the U.S. is guilty of is bad enough in its own way, but it's extremely pointless to tack on additional imaginary non-existent sins. AnonMoos (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As some other people here have already said, the U.S. never gave money to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, since these organizations didn't exist yet in the early and mid-1980s. In the 1980s, the U.S. did give money and aid to the Mujihadeen (some of whom were Islamic extremists who would later form and join the Taliban and al-Qaeda) to help them fight the Soviets. However, the more moderate Mujihadin (Ahmed Shah Massoud, etc.) also probably got some money and aid from the U.S. in the 1980s as well, so it weren't only the Islamic extremists who were getting U.S. aid to fight the Soviets. I did hear in a documentary (I'm not sure which one) that the U.S. considered the mode radical Islamic Mujihadin to be better fighters because they were more passionate, but again, the U.S. probably gave a lot of aid and money to the moderate Mujihadin as well. By the time that the Taliban was created and al-Qaeda established a safe haven in Afghanistan, the U.S. essentially stopped its large-scale engagement (including giving large amounts of money) in Afghanistan since it felt that Afghanistan was no longer a vital strategic interest to the U.S. after the U.S.S.R. withdrew from there and collapsed. Futurist110 (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions about Italia

1) Who were public security keepers in that era (Leonardo da Vinci's era), royal knights or "polices" or something?

2) If I recall correctly, courts were in church's hand, right?--Lê _{talk-contributions} 22:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

1) No royal knights. Each nation had it's own army, but this is a bit past the age of knights (except in a ceremonial way).

2) Each nation had it's own legal system, but the Church also had a parallel system, where they tried people for crimes against the Church. However, if the nation protected a person from the Church, they may have been safe (this is what happened when Martin Luther opposed the Church, in what is now Germany). StuRat (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It's (or should I say "its"?) anachronistic to refer to states of that period as "nations", particularly in Italy! —Tamfang (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I wasn't quite sure what to call them. Some seemed to be a little bigger than city-states. StuRat (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Another question, did lawyer-like and investigator/detective-like exist in the era? --Lê _{talk-contributions} 03:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe they had the equivalent of a prosecutor/investigator, but no real defense lawyer. You had to defend yourself, although you could sometimes have witnesses speak on your behalf. Note that trials then tended to be show trials, where, rather than getting to the truth, they wanted to justify a decision they already made, in the eyes of the public. This did lead to something similar to a plea bargain, where, if the accused would agree to confess to their real or trumped-up offenses, they would be given a lighter sentence. If you tried to claim you were innocent, then they would likely find you guilty and give you the full sentence, regardless of the evidence. Thus, the courts of the time were a means of controlling the population, rather than ensuring justice. StuRat (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

U.S. and serial killers

I have read from several sources that most of serial killings in the World take place in America. Why are there so many serial killers in the U.S.? Nienk (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I doubt if that's really true. Serial killers in the US likely just get more publicity. In other nations they may not be called that. Mexico has had a huge numbers of unexplained murders of women, for example, but you barely hear about that. StuRat (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

(EC)And I have read from several sources that that is a misconception. Serial killings seem to be more sensationalized in the US media and that probably accounts for the misconception.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 23:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with StuRat. You will be surprised how many murderers get away in China, for example. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Think Rwanda. For so many people to have died in Rwanda, there must be lots of people in Rwanda who have killed hundreds of people each. This makes the USA's gun problem look rather tame. Of course, the USA is supposed to be a bit more civilised than Rwanda, but that's the way the dice roll if those are the choices you make about your laws. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well if you count conflict murders the US would gain a few hundred thousand serial killers. 65.95.22.16 (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

List of serial killers by country gives some info, but, again, note that they may be severely under-reported in many of those nations. However, the relatively large population in the US combined with availability of handguns may put the US number higher than most. StuRat (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think many serial killers use guns to kill their victims. The only one that comes to mind is the Craigslist killer. Though they may use the guns to control their victims when abducting them or whatever. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I saw a documentary recently about a French couple who were serial killers. Apparently the police at first dismissed the idea that it was a serial killer commiting all of the murders because serial killers are "an American phenomenon". It's surely easy to find the couple I'm talking about by looking at List_of_serial_killers_by_country#France, but my company's filter won't let me access what it terms "violence".

In general, you can get some indication of whether or not your assumption is valid by looking at that list. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Not really. That list does include far more serial killers from the US (on a separate page), but classifying murderers as serial killers (or not) is inherently biased, so you can't go by numbers alone. StuRat (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not biased, it's clear under FBI rules that a serial killer is that who kills three or more people during a period of time. Nienk (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but other nations don't follow FBI rules. And, even if they did, many local authorities would intentionally list murders that seem related as separate "isolated incidents" to avoid bad publicity. StuRat (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point StuRat, which is why I said some indication. Remember I can't even see the list let alone evaluate it. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Another factor is that a serial killer may be more likely to be so specified only after they are caught, since the police like the publicity of having caught a serial killer, but dislike the publicity of not being able to catch one. Thus, nations which have more success in catching them are likely to have higher numbers. Also, in a nation where they don't have the resources to fully investigate murders, nobody will ever connect the dots to determine that a serial killer is on the loose. This might explain why the number of serial killers listed in third world nations is so low. StuRat (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A good example of the police having no resources to even be able to tell that a serial killer was operating in their jurisdiction is Verry Idham Henyansyah. He killed most of his victims in a rural village before moving to Jakarta and being caught almost instantly. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No couples listed under France. —Tamfang (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Just look at the map, specifically at the nations with incredibly high (relative) murder rates. And then look at the nations that are likely to regularly utilize the best forensic technology. They don't overlap. The US has an unusually high murder rate for a developed nation, as well as disproportionate press coverage of serial killers. So looking at all this, all I conclude is that, amongst the nations with lots of murders, ours is the only one using the best technology to connect the murders. I just doubt that even murderers caught in an impoverished nation would be successfully tied to other murders they may have committed. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that intentional homocide includes non-murders like manslaughter, justified killings, etc. It may even include deaths in war, but I'm not sure of that. I don't know if the press coverage of serial killers in the USA is any greater than in Australia or the UK. They are pretty sensational events. You're right about the killers in poorer countries though. The earlier victims of the one I mentioned above are only known because he confessed. Apparently the police weren't even investigating them as disappearances, let alone murders. And what's with Greenland on that map? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Greenland had 11 homicides per 56,194 residents in 2009, so the rate is correct. I was also under the impression that as a developed nation Greenland would have lower homicide rates. A8875 (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

When you get to numbers that low, it's almost random. This is similar to how the Concorde went from the safest plane to the most dangerous, after one crash. StuRat (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That was my first thought as well, so I looked into the data. Turns out it's been consistently high (at least between 1995 and 2009). This does not match my previous impression of Greenland at all.

'	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
Count	11	3	11	6	11	13	17	12	5	11	10	10	2	6	11
Per 100k	19.8	5.4	19.7	10.7	19.6	23.1	30.1	21.2	8.8	19.3	17.5	17.5	3.5	10.5	19.2

A8875 (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This chart makes me suspect these are grudge and alcohol related. I have an indigenous friend who committed a stabbing in a bar. Is there any info on the nature of the murders rather than just their number? μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Our wonderfully unreferenced article: Law enforcement in Greenland. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"while the bigger towns have jails, the sentences are brief and its inmates can be found drinking on holidays" -- my kind of country. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

(EC with all 3 responses above from μηδείς, Someguy1221 and μηδείς timestamped before mine.)

According to [3] which were examining data from 1968–2002, most homicides were impulsive and alcohol related. Combining with data above with the data in [4], it looks to me like the rates went up from 1968 to a peak in about 1988 and then came down again, although it's so noisy given the low number it's difficult to draw this conclusion with any real confidence. From the same article "In 119 of the 308 homicide cases, victims were killed by shot-guns or explosives, 95 by cutting or piercing objects". It also notes the rate is considered high for Nordic countries and cites [5] which although I haven't read suggests alcohol and drug abuse have been big factors in the increase in homicide rates in Nordic countries in general. (N.B. I'm just following the source in referring to Greenland in this way, so no disputes over this please.) Law enforcement in Greenland which seems to primary consist of repeating stuff Lonely Planet said mentions alcohol and drug use as being linked to most crime there. [6] [7] mentions alcoholism as a problem.

Without wanting to turn this discussion in to too much of a political discussion, it's possible the firearm availablity is a factor, as the availability of a firearm could easily turn a nasty alcohol or drug fueled dispute into a homicide. If for example only 10% of firearm related homicides would have been homicides without a firearm, you reduce the number to about 209 from 308. To try and keep people happy, I would note even then the rate would still be high in worldwide terms and the study also mentions that the penal system is mild with even murderers in prison often being able to keep a job and family relations in the community.)

Both our article and the news sources note problems with domestic violence. The journal article didn't mention domestic violence and generally I think, women are much more likely then men to be victims of domestic violence related homicide then men and only 39% of the homicides were women so I presume plenty of them are not domestic violence related, but it's still possible a signifant fraction are.

BTW, the study's primary aim was to see if there was any seasonality in suicide and homicide rates (and therefore possible linkage to light levels) but they found none for homicide rates although I presume the low rates over their study even given the large study period made it difficult (I didn't check to see if they noted this). Incidentally, the study notes a few cases of people killed in multiple homicide events, but it seems from [8] even a 3 homicide event is still a big enough deal to result in lowering of flags etc. As an aside, we seem to have dealt with this issue better then the comment section here [9] where there was a lot of mention of the Greenland issue but little good analysis.

And in case people are querying my EC above, yes, it did take that long (I started researching at 3:30), because finding, intepreting and composing relevent info from sources, and checking assumptions (some of which isn't shown here due to the lack of sufficient quality sources like Greenland firearm availability) takes a lot more time then the random unsourced suppostion which started the dicussion I ECed with. This isn't unusual, for me and others I'm sure and I wouldn't normally comment about. Except I followed the correct indentation A8875 was using before the table induced problems which μηδείς unfortunately did not so left my comment above theirs after the EC. Which unfortunately lead to a problems after μηδείς moved my post, hence the hidden discussion below which I found particularly frustrating given that I had already spent a lot of time on this (the earlier time wasn't wasted, the later...). And while the supposition appears to have been correct, it IMO wasn't that important to the discussion, hence the frustration evident below.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

preemption discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have moved Nil's response below the ones that predated it by up to half an hour and changed his "below" to my [above]. μηδείς (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC) And I have reverted you. Your change made my statement make no sense. My response clearly was not an EC with all the responses above otherwise I would be replying to nothing. Given the poor indentation here, I feel leaving my response above even if it was after is the correct course of action. While I appreciate A8875 started the indentation issue due to a formatting issue with table usage, they did indent their post correctly initially and there was no need for you to follow the table induced formatting problems (I admit I intially did but changed my mind when I realised it may cause unnecessary confusion and following the proper indenting should be much of an issue, and this was before I saw any of the replies below). In fact you didn't even follow it since you didn't indent your post at all, so it's not entirely clear to me if you're intending to reply to A8875 or start a new discussion. If you were intending to start another discussion, then it was completely appropriate and normal for me to leave my post where I did regardless of chronological order and even if I had seen your posts before I started replying if I was replying to A8875 as I was.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC>) You modified your identation below so it looks like you're replying to A8875 but considering I'm following the proper indentation level of the thread before the table induced formatting issue and you're not, it's still confusing to have my reply below yours. And it is also confusing if you arbitarily move my post where I made it clear my post was an EC with all posts below which included yours but was no longer clear after you moved your post. Also it doesn't look like you notified Someguy1221 despite the fact it sounded like they were replying to you but this is no longer clear from the indentation. I've modified my wording above but given your failure twice already please do not move my post, as I've said, if you choose to fix your indenting level, I will voluntarily move my post. How you ident is to some extent up to you but if people feel your identing causes confusion, don't be surprised if they post above yours even you post before and your post is intended to be at the same level of identing. Edit: Sounds like it was not μηδείς who did the moving and perhaps changed the indentation level below. I've wasted enough time on this dumb issue so can't be bothered tracking down who did it, but whoever did it, please don't do it again. Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

August 19

Total number of nuclear reactors ever constructed?

During an off-line argument about nuclear safety, the question of accident rates came up. Someone took the number of nuclear accidents and divided it by the number of currently operational reactors and came up with a (obviously flawed) rate.

There are many sites out there estimating the number of currently operational nuclear reactors[10], but I can't find any data on the total number of reactors past and present. A8875 (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, do you want the number of reactors, power plants, installations or what? The number of reactors is almost certainly impossible to determine, since there are plenty of small scale research reactors. Some very small experiments could correctly be called nuclear reactors. The first ever man made nuclear reactor was a pile of uranium and graphite on a tennis court. Many nuclear reactors are secrect for various reasons. Power plants often have multiple reactors, for example the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant had four of six planned reactors. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

How many operational civilian nuclear plants have their ever been? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the World Nuclear Association 85 commercial power reactors have been decommissioned[11]. According to Nuclear_power_by_country#List_of_nuclear_reactors_by_country there are 433 currently operating nuclear reactors registered with the IAEA. So assuming that the 433 reactors registered with the IAEA are all commercial power reactors, then 518 have been completed ever. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

These numbers are wrong, simply because the number decommissioned is not the entirety of the number shut down. More have been shut down than decommissioned. (Shutting down just means inserting the control rods; decommissioning means removing all nuclear fuel and etc. from the site.) See below for better numbers. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, any numbers you derive from this are still going to be flawed. Some of the decommissioned reactors only ran for very short periods (e.g. Greifswald Nuclear Power Plant). Any statitics you derive from a data set like this are going to be more a a rhetorical device than a real measure of relative merits of power generation methods. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Even a teenage Boy Scout can build a breeder reactor. Dismas|^(talk) 02:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to derive any sort of statistics out of this at all. Even if I were, it would be accidents per reactor per operational year or accidents per MWhr. The argument is long over, I'm just looking for this number to pique my own curiosity.A8875 (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I just want the number of reactors. Whether it's connected to the grid or just a research reactor doesn't matter. Since none of us have access to classified information I suppose it's more accurate to say "the number of publicly-known nuclear reactors".

Chernobyl had 4 reactors. A Papa class submarine has 2 reactors. Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant had 6 reactors before the accident. I don't think the number reactors at any given site is ambiguous at all. The hard part is counting all the sites that ever existed.

Of course I don't expect anyone at the reference desk to do the counting. Just a pointer to a relevant website is more than enough. A8875 (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The proportion of reactors that have an accident isn't a very useful metric, anyway. A reactor that runs for 10 minutes and then explodes is very different to a reactor that runs for 30 years and then goes wrong. You could look at something like deaths per MW of power produced and compare that to other energy sources (how many deaths have their been from coal mining, for instance? Or from accidents on off-shore oil rigs?). --Tango (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The number of research reactors as defined by the IAEA (which also includes many critical assemblies) ever constructed is about 690 (the IAEA's Research Reactor Database is my basis of the numbers, but you have to factor out the number that are just planned or cancelled). For power reactors, mucking around with some IAEA reports we get (as of December 2011) 435 active reactors + 5 in long term shutdown + 138 permanently shut down = 579 power reactors total. So that's around 1269 worldwide reactors ever. Now, if you're planning to just do a "number who meltdown divided by number constructed" calculation, be aware that this is a conceptually sloppy way to gauge safety or risk. A classic book on gauging long-term accident rates with regards to nuclear power is Charles Perrow's Normal Accidents, which argues that you'll have about one major accident a decade or so, which is not so far off from observed reality. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It occurs to me that those numbers probably leave out the number of military nuclear reactors constructed, as well as vehicular reactors (e.g. nuclear submarines and icebreakers). So I'd add maybe 50 or so to that final value? Just a rough estimate. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I did a rough count of all the subs mentioned in the Nuclear_submarine article. The total number of reactors on-board nuclear submarines is 510. All that's left are the nuclear surface vessels. Like I mentioned above, I'm getting this number purely to pique my own curiosity. Since the operational hours of the military reactors are classified, it's basically impossible for civilians to calculate an accidents per operational year rate.A8875 (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Do plutonium-production reactors like the ones at Hanford appear in any of your counts? Are isotope-production reactors included under "research reactors"? --Carnildo (talk) 01:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Technically, even nuclear weapons are a type of reactor. That's why I questioned the definitions above. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget all the little TRIGA reactors which were supposedly idiot proof, and which were installed on college campuses for students to experiment on. Edison (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Those are included in my research reactor count. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

how many airplanes are up in the air right now

How many airplanes are up in the air right now? Worldwide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.155.161.109 (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Animated Atlas of Flight Traffic over North America says US and Canadian traffic peaks at midday at about 5300. Run the animation, stop it at the appropriate time, and you can count the dots representing flights. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's an interesting youtube video purporting to show all large aircraft flights across the world over a 24 hour span. Using my Mark I Eyeball, it looks like the rest of the world accounts for less than twice as much traffic, so I'm guessing somewhere between 5,000-10,000. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This site[12] has real-time global flight tracking. The problem is that it's missing data from the two of the most populous country on Earth; the two plus Indonesia equals 40% of the world population. Second problem is that it's categorically missing aircrafts due to technical limitations[13]. While other sites is claiming ~1500 flights in North America[14], flightradar24.com is claiming ~1500 for the whole world. A8875 (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's another site called planefinder, which shows over 2400 in the air right now, but also excludes India and China (and probably other countries as well) it appears. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a small diversion; "Shipfinder" is a great app for the iPad if you are interested in the location and movement of shipping.--85.211.154.5 (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758

• Sino-Soviet border conflict (1969)
• United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 (1971)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Voting_res_2758.png

Why did the USSR support the PRC in this vote?

The USSR and China had just fought a very intense war in 1969.

The USSR did not need another veto vote in the Security Council to stop anything from happening. -- Toytoy (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The USSR likely recognized that the PRC was more likely to vote with them than the ROC on most issues. But I'm just speculating. It's also the case that both the PRC and USSR were trying to be slightly more flexible towards one another by 1971, even though they still were officially not friendly. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hitler and horses

In the somewhat controversial book "The memoirs of Doctor Felix Kersten" by Felix Kersten it is written that Hitler had an irrational fear of horses. http://books.google.it/books?ei=ZwMxUJrcIoLUtAaykoHYDg&hl=it&id=GRtoAAAAMAAJ&dq=felix+kersten+horses&q=+horses#search_anchor The passage reads: "Himmler also disclosed that Hitler had an unreasoning hatred of horses. He wanted to have every horse which came anywhere near him shot. A fantastic rumor which I had heard was confirmed by Himmler." Is there any proof/reference of this? Did at least any rumor about it circulate? It seems like a bold lie to invent. --151.41.160.11 (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Other sources (I wouldn't say more reliable) suggest Hitler had a horse [15] [16] which is buried in the US. Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Mmmm. I believe that "Hitler's Horse" is actually a metaphore for "famous German horse during the Third Reich". In one of the link there is even a photomontage with Hitler on a horse with the caption: "If Hitler had ever ridden a horse, it might have looked like this." --151.41.160.11 (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This postcard seems to suggest otherwise, although there seems to be only one depiction of him actually sitting on a horse. This forum has some more details. Alansplodge (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

My reading of the sources is somewhat different to yours. They seem to suggest to me it's really claimed it was Hitler's horse, although there's no real evidence it actually was. See also [17] which basically says the same thing although perhaps with a bit less of the fluff then the other sources (I initially had another source in my first reply, The Examiner, but removed it because it was on the spam blocklist and didn't seem that important). This source makes even more claims about horses belong to Hitler [18], but again without any real evidence he did actually own or ride them (well beyond the saddle presuming we accept the veracity of the claim, but the saddle doesn't necessarily mean it belonged to Hitler). Nil Einne (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Considering that it was common, at the time, for male heads of state to ride horses on formal occasions, but Hitler didn't do so, you could speculate that he wasn't comfortable with horses. I don't think we have an article on his alleged racehorse, Nordlicht (that article is on something else). StuRat (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the postcard's caption, translated into English, might be "How many horse's patooties are in this picture? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The picture appeared on the cover of Berliner Illustrirte Zeitung, Nr. 28, 11. Juli 1940, 49. Jahrgang. Text: Mitten in den Vogesen: Der Führer trifft auf einer Fahrt ein krankes französisches Armeepferd. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on that, I'd guess that he wasn't terrified of horses, but may still have been uncomfortable riding them. StuRat (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you know Hitler didn't do so? Nil Einne (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The Nazis, being propaganda experts, would have made a movie out of such a scene, and we would all have seen it. StuRat (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You're presuming they thought it useful propaganda. And how hard did you actually look for such a movie? I'm sure there are many, many propaganda movies of Hitler no one on the RD has ever seen. And the Nazi's were hardly the only people to use propaganda during WW2. Have you actually seen a video of any other significant leader at the time on a horse? Nil Einne (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

How hard did you look ? Here's Churchhill on a horse: [19]. Here's Hirohito on a horse: [20]. Here's a statue of Stalin on a horse: [21]. FDR, being crippled by polio, probably couldn't ride well. StuRat (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I never said I looked. You were the one alleging that there was something unique about Hitler here, so it was entirely resonable for me to ask you to provide evidence for what you're saying; and it's unresonable for me to have to provide evidence that something you're saying without sources is correct. And you still haven't found any videos (you claimed there would be propaganda videos of Hitler on a horse which we would have all seen, not pictures). In any case, as it stands, we now have a picture of Hitler, Churchill and Hirohito on a horse. The picture of Churchill doesn't even really seem to count as a propaganda picture I would suggest. AndI somehow don't think a picture of a statue with Stalin on a horse really counts but anyway.... I don't quite get what you're trying to prove here with these pictures but whatever it is, you don't seem to have proven it. You definitely haven't shown there's any unusual about how common it was for Hitler to be depicted on a horse vis a vis the other people, particularly given the many differences between them. (Stalin, Hirohito and Churchill had much longer political lives then Hitler. Hirohito and Churchill were also aristocrats.) Of course the more important point, which you seem to have missed is that so far we don't actually have any real evidence it is unusual for Hitler to be depicted on a horse. Yes no one has found one besides the one linked earlier, but there's so much fluff surrounding Hitler this isn't exactly surprising. A search of actual Nazi propaganda archives etc is likely to be needed before we can draw any real conclusion that Hitler was hardly ever depicted on a horse. Or at least evidence someone already tried and came to that conclusion. In the absence of such evidence, we have no real reason to think Hitler was hardly ever depicted on a horse or as you original said 'male heads of state to ride horses on formal occasions, but Hitler didn't do so' so any conclusion you try to draw from this fairly unsupported claim is suspect. Nil Einne (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

"...we now have a picture of Hitler ... on a horse" ? No we don't, that's the whole point. I suppose I could find videos if I wanted to spend hours looking through movies to defend myself from your baseless accusations, but I don't care to waste any more of my time. Next time, if you disagree with me, offer some actual proof that I'm wrong, instead of wasting my time. StuRat (talk) 05:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies I thought the discussion above concerned a picture of Hitler on a horse. I now see it was him near a horse. However it doesn't significantly change my statement. We have a single picture of those two leaders, with vastly longer political lives, and one of them an aristocrat, one of them being an emperor, on a horse. And two of them without the level of fluff there is surrounding Hitler. We also have a picture of a statue. Neither of these 3 singular pictures go anywhere near establishing the statements you keep claiming as fact, without any evidence, on the reference desk. Nil Einne (talk) 05:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

And just how many pics and videos would I have to supply for you to believe that they rode horses ? Are you incapable of using Google ? I see at least 3 of Churchill: [22] and many of Hirohito: [23]. As for Stalin, I don't see much beyond the statue, but that does show he wanted to be portrayed on horseback, even if he didn't personally ride (unless you think the statue was done without his permission). I've also seen video of Hirohito riding (rather stiffly). StuRat (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As I've said before, there's no reason I should have to Google for evidence you've failed to provide for claims you keep making. However I did search earlier, which proved to me what I said hence why I said it. There is way to much fluff surrounding Hitler (and irrelevent stuff when it comes to Stalin) for the difficulty finding such depictions from a simple Google search to tell us anything meaningful about the existence of such depictions. In any case, you still seem to be completely ignoring the artistocrat/emperor angle for the other 2. As for the statue of Stalin, from what I can tell Hitler large scale public statues of Hitler were rare. I can't find any good sources discussiing this but this [24] perhaps some questionable source suggests there were only busts and the like, not many, if any, outdoor statues. Various sources discussing the cult of personality surrounding Hitler [25] [26] [27] [28] don't mention such statues either. Notably they do show plenty depictions which seem to fit an image of Hitler of which Hitler on as horse just doesn't seem to fit to me, although that's obviously just supposition on my part (which I only mention because it's what this whole subthread you started was based on). Notably the last one mentions Hitler was very careful about his image with his permission needed for using it confirming my earlier claim below. Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that he didn't ride horses on formal occasions says much one way or the other. He may have chosen not to ride horses to underline his position as the people's leader, not an old-fashioned aristocrat who rode a horse in the age of the automobile. --NellieBly (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You're forgetting the appeal to history aspect of Nazi Germany. Since they considered themselves to be the successors of the Roman Empire and Holy Roman Empire, pics of their "heroic leader" on a horse would support the image they wanted to project. StuRat (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

According to who? StuRat? Nil Einne (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Statements like that aren't helpful. Would you like it if I challenged everything you say, for no apparent reason ? If you're going to disagree, please say what you disagree with and why. "Third Reich" means third empire:[29] (bottom), although according to that site, the earlier 2 were the Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire under Bismark. StuRat (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well if that statement wasn't helpful, I'll be more blunt. My point is you've provided zero evidence that 'pics of their "heroic leader" on a horse would support the image they wanted to project'. There are clearly many things that those involved would likely have considered in promoting such pics, some of them contradictory, and you only appear to have taken one of them on board, and are ignoring others even when they've been pointed out. (Another key consideration you seem to have ignored is Hitler's own personal POV. There could be any variety of reasons he wouldn't have wanted such pics to be widespread, not liking or being afraid of horses only one of them. Hitler wasn't always extremely consistent or rational in his thought process anyway so there's no real reason to think he would have decided it was okay for him to be seen doing as something associated with the aristocrat classes, which perhaps even he associated with it, just because it was also associated with the Roman Empire etc. If he really didn't want such depictions, there's a fair chance they would never have happened whatever his propaganda experts thought of the value of such pics, which as I've said we've far from established would actually have been as positive as you keep alleging without any real evidence.) In other words, your complete speculation based on things you know little about with scant regard for actual sourcing, or at least a properly considered argument isn't particularly helpful to the discussion, as is normally the case; and the frequency with which you do it on the reference desk is the reason why plenty of other people challenge a lot of what you say. Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As I demonstrated above, it was normal for leaders at the time to be photographed on horses, so Hitler choosing not to do so is significant, and shouldn't just be dismissed. Rather than saying "There could be any variety of reasons...", how about listing some ? StuRat (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Me and NellieBly already listed one, which you dismissed out of hand, so why would I bother to list more? Nil Einne (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Riding in a car to portray himself as a "man of the people" doesn't really fly, since he was often in an over-the-top luxury car: [30]. A common person would be far more able to afford a horse than such a car. At the start of Hitler's reign, I bet more people still owned horses than cars, let alone cars like that. StuRat (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed NellieBly's point about it being the modern age of the automobile. With horses still useful for some purposes, but automobiles more practical for others particularly when you are a leader. Notably, riding horses for formal occassions being unnecessary and something associated with showing off and the aristocratic classes. (Perhaps I'm mistaken but I believe by that stage automobiles were associated with the well off, but not necessarily aritocrats. And again while I could be mistaken, I don't believe there was necessarily the connotation of a 'luxury' automobile being an unnecessary thing for leaders that there may be nowadays.) Raw ownership numbers are fairly meaningless since we're talking about connotations. While I hesitate to link to Stormfront on the RD, they do discuss the 'Hitler's horse' a bit [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t601165/] notably mentioning 'that he did not own any horses, and he despised horse races as "plutocratic-jewish snobism."'. I mention this primary because it's easy to see it beign an accurate reflection of Hitler thought process on horse races and him also having similar views on riding a horse for unnecessary purposes like at formal occasions as me and NellieBly have suggested. More so since Hitler appeared to be a supporter of animal welfare as we've discussed somewhat on the RD before and I presume you're aware if you are trying to discuss Hitler's thought process. So it's easy to imagine his being opposed to using horses when it wasn't necessary on those grounds. (Or heck, perhaps he thought using horses was a necessary evil, but wasn't something he wanted to be personally associated with.) There is this interesting depiction of Churchill [31], although whether the horse money bag and the quote from Richard III (play) was intended to convey the association of Churchill being an aristocrat I can't say (nor find any analysis). See also above. There are of course plenty of other reasons Hitler may not want to be depicted on a horse, e.g. he never learnt to ride (not because he was afraid or didn't like horses but simply because he didn't) and so if he ever actually tried (which is far from a given if he never learnt to ride), he thought it unseemly or undignified. Heck, this could apply even if he was a good rider. Or may be he never found a horse which he felt was suitable for his position (and if it wasn't important, there's no reason to think he tried hard). I'm not of course suggesting any of this is definitely what Hitler or the Nazi propaganda officials thought, simply that there's little reason to think the lack of depictions of Hitler on a horse (if true, which I still feel has far from been established) suggests he was afraid or didn't like them. (I'm sure this [32] Soviet propaganda of Hitler is definitely not something he liked.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If Hitler really was scared of horses, then it's somewhat ironic given that Nazi Germany relied on horses for logistics more than any other belligerent save for the USSR. I've read that the Nazi's aversion to the use of chemical weapons was at least partly motivated by the fact that they were more vulnerable to gas attacks due to their extensive use of horses compared to the allies. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Side note: I'd never heard this about Hitler, but one of my history teachers anecdotally related it about Mussolini. Apparently he was extremely frightened of horses, but understood the value of the image of a man on a white horse come to save the nation from its dire straits. This seems to bear that out, at least in one aspect - an experienced rider presumably wouldn't need a trainer standing right there to hold the mount for such a pedestrian pose... ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath of the US Civil War for Confederate leaders

Having recently seen Gettysburg (1993), I got interested in the fate of Confederate leaders after they lost the war, as they were not only considered rebels, but even traitors to their country. Not only is there frustratingly little on this topic in the articles American Civil War, Reconstruction Era of the United States, Confederate States Army, and List of Confederate Regular Army officers. Moreso, after an hour or two of digging, all I found hidden in remote articles and/or talkpages was a short sentence that came down to that everybody associated with the Confederacy was granted a sweeping general pardon by President Johnson in 1869, and only sentenced to the loss of voting and office-holding rights for five years.

Confronted with the crime of high treason and the most atrocious acts of war crimes that North America has ever seen (though notably on both sides), this comes as quite a surprise for a dumb, uninvolved European as me. Now, you may say that I'm talking from a post-1945 perspective with the UN statutes on war crimes in force (and indeed, this post is made by a person from the nation whose leaders were indicted at Nuremberg, which may add to my confusion here), but high treason against the monarch or nation at least has a very long tradition as being punishable by death. (There's suspiciously little information to be found on the matter regarding historical US jurisdiction (I'm getting lots of "This information is not (yet) available" in public and gov't legal online databases), but some hearsay I've dug up seems to suggest that Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution as well as 18 USC put capital punishment upon treason and/or sedition on the federal level, and conspiracy for such as far back as the early 19th century already. It is certainly clear that treason on the federal level in the US is punishable by death since at least WWII.)

Moreover, the concepts of Westphalian sovereignty on territorial integrity and laws of war were long established, and the North promulgated the Lieber Code. The latter though obviously to little consequence after the war; I've looked long and hard to find anything such as contemporary congressional or other public or legal committees investigating into how the war had been lead or deciding what exact legal compensations were to be forced upon the losers (and of course even less could be found of such being enforced upon the winners) other than military control of their territory (though reading some (neo-)confederate apologists, it appears to me that many Southerners felt most punished, offended, and humiliated by Emancipation and rights for blacks now even in the South), and indeed the only United States Congress Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War I could find was a Northern institution that was handling issues regarding how to most effectively crush the other side while the war was still on-going.

So, this rather lentient attitude towards the leading conspirators and war criminals seems rather surprising, moreso since the mutual animosities and hatred didn't seem to have been much pacified by the subsequent Reconstruction Era. From a European perspective, it would appear as if both Northern and Southern observers would probably agree that the animosities were even greater after the war than they had been before. The North even went so far as to enforce permanent military control equal to martial law over the South for close to a decade (for what actual reasons or hidden agendas whatsoever, which probably depends upon which side you ask). Even when leaving out the high treason argument and considering the fact that both sides were equally guilty of war crimes, one could contrast the rather mild peace conditions with the Treaty of Versailles for instance, where both sides in the war had been equally guilty of war crimes at an ever larger scale, and still the victors intended to put to trial war crimes perpetrated by the losers, out of a similar animosity as persisted after the Civil War.

With so much dispute then and now over the legal aspects of secession (whether it was legal or not), wasn't there even some general or at least minor public debate or controversy over the general amnesty for Confederate political and military leaders after the war, or regarding their treatment prior to the amnesty? It seems like after the war, everybody just went home, although hating the other side even more than before. What about the views of historians today regarding proper treament and/or status of Confederate leaders after the war? That's the stuff I miss in coverage of the Civil War and the Reconstruction Era here on Wikipedia. There's a lot of racial and regional tensions covered, but not much regarding public debates on the treatment of the "rebel" leaders over treason, war crimes, and crimes against the civilian populace. Being an ignorant European, I'm not quite sure whether I should inquire at one of the talkpages, as that may constitute disruption being closer to political or philosophical debate rather than constructive debate over article improvents, so I'm rather asking my questions here. --79.193.44.13 (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as war crimes go, Henry got the Wirz of it, along with Champ Ferguson; according to the first article, they were the only two executed. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Despite the legal status, I believe most in the North viewed the succession as legitimate, and thus the leaders of the Confederacy were not traitors, but leaders of an enemy state. Also, treating the South too harshly, say be executing it's leaders, could have resulted in continued guerrilla warfare. StuRat (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not unusual to be pretty lenient with a defeated enemy. You've already won. As long as you can ensure they are not a continued threat, then what do you have to gain by punishing them further? --Tango (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is the idea of ensuring that they, or somebody like them, will never try that again. However, I agree with the enemy must either be wiped out or allowed to live in dignity. Leaving them alive, yet humiliated, is a recipe for disaster, as Germany post WW1 proved. StuRat (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I dunno...the French have lived humiliated without any serious consequences for 70 odd years... 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Some reliable sourcing would be helpful for me to accept the OP's hyperbole of " the most atrocious acts of war crimes that North America has ever seen." Has he never heard of what the Spanish invaders did to the native inhabitants of North America(Mexico is definitely "North America"), or what the British did to rebels in the American Revolution (for example forces under the command of [[Banastre Tarleton]) , or what the rebels did in that war to Tories, or what the Native Americans did to the German farmers in the Dakota War in Minnesota starting 150 years ago today, or what the Mormon militia did to the Fancher party of wagon train immigrants in the Mountain Meadows massacre, or what the Native Americans did to women and children in the Fort Dearborn massacre (I do not consider the slaughter a "battle,") or what the US Army did to Native Americans at Wounded Knee? The US , North and South, suffered a horrible loss , and was ready for the conflict to be OVER, not to execute the defeated officers and politicians in a "victor's justice" such as the Allies imposed after WW2, so as to prolong the war into generation after generation, as in the Middle east or Eastern Europe. Edison (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, many people wonder why Nathan Bedford Forrest is celebrated as an alleged "hero"[sic]... AnonMoos (talk) 06:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Very few people were executed after WW2, and those were for genocide. I don't call that "victor's justice", I call that "justice". StuRat (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There were no trials for the victors who commited war crimes. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that in no way exonerates the Nazis and Japanese of their war crimes. StuRat (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody's exhonourating them, but putting the enemies on trial and letting your own crimes slide is the very definition of victor's justice. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you seriously see Harry Truman surrendering himself to his own authorities and demanding they charge him with war crimes for his part in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or the entire UK Cabinet led by Winston Churchill marching down to the local cop shop and confessing to the bombing of Dresden and insisting they be locked up and dealt with appropriately? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No. Is there a point to those questions? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. When they do it to us, it's an outrageous crime against humanity and they must be punished. When we do it to them, it's a regrettable but unavoidable necessity in our campaign to defeat the enemy. War has always been thus. I don't defend it, but expecting the winning side to fully investigate its own actions is a little unrealistic. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I, too, fully expect that as long as human beings resort to arms en masse to resolve disputes, the victors will use a pretense of serving justice to take revenge on the vanquished. I'm just calling it for what it is. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The part of that which is objectionable is that it equates the intentional genocide of millions with the reciprocal bombing of cities. The later can be justified as the quickest way to end the war and prevent more deaths, while the former has no justification whatsoever. StuRat (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not equating the two. I didn't mention genocide or bombings. There were plenty of unambiguious atrocities on the allied side in World War 2. See Allied war crimes during World War II and World_War_II_atrocities#Allied_powers_.28listed_by_country.29.

The most clear cut example I can think of off the top my head of how the same act was a crime if the axis did it, but laudable if the allied did, how was Otto Skorzeny, who was tried for ordering his troops to wear captured enemy uniforms, and F. F. E. Yeo-Thomas who admitted at Skorzeny's trial that he'd done it himself and was hailed a hero and given the George Cross medal. If the Allies wanted to claim that they were putting Axis officers on trial in the interests of justice, then they should have applied it equally. Instead, they just made hypocrites of themselves and lost the moral highground. As Jack said, it's no more than what you'd expect really, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't recognise it for what it was. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd consider all, or most, atrocities between colonials and natives not "war crimes" (with probably the exception of the Dakota War and Wounded Knee for AFAIK, the whites didn't begin to actually be impressed by the morals and fighting spirit of their enemies prior to the Dakota War) triable under definitions of contemporary law, especially what the Spaniards did early on, on the grounds that most whites certainly didn't see their enemies as civilized "equals" on any account that proper laws of war could be applied to, or occuring as an official act of war, notwithstanding that not making these acts any less heinous and despicable. And I must admit to my shame that I had no prior knowledge of the Mormon militia, or that the American Revolution was as bloody as the Civil War.

Yes, I can see that the US just wanted peace, but it seems that such an enormous strife and hatred persisted on both sides after the war, just look at how to this day, the overall public in the US can't seem to agree between the North and the South on how to call many things related to the war, or even just the causes of the war itself (part of why people stage annual giant live-action re-enactments of the war, I understand, as some kind of public open-air family therapy where neither side has so far overcome the traumatic conflict that originally gave rise to the mutual hatred exploding in war?) that it seems so odd that Confederate leaders weren't even sentenced to short-term prison sentences, or not even any reparational or compensational claims beyond Emancipation itself were made. I mean after WWI, the French made the Germans pay dearly and heavily in good money for the reconstruction of Leuven, Verdun, and Yperns, but apparently, the North didn't make the South pay a direct war reparations-like tribute to be paid to the victors in Washington for reconstruction of any buildings and infrastructure. --79.193.44.13 (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of the fighting was on Southern or border-state territory (excluding William Quantrill's activities, the relatively brief Gettysburg excursion, etc.), and large parts of the south were pretty much economically ruined when the fighting ended. AnonMoos (talk) 06:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This article, Jefferson Davis's Imprisonment, suggests that the question of what to do with Confederate leaders focused on what do to with Jefferson Davis, who was charged with treason. For reasons I don't quite understand the article says that President Johnson gave amnesty to all who had rebelled because he thought the court might rule in favor of Jefferson Davis: "Fearing the court would rule in favor of Davis, Johnson released an amnesty proclamation on December 25, 1868, issuing a pardon to all persons who had participated in the rebellion." I don't quite understand what Johnson was afraid of and why it led to his proclaiming amnesty, but this seems to be the crux of the issue. There are odd complications...like that Horace Greeley, a Radical Republican, helped pay for Jefferson Davis's release on bail. Apparently a lot of folk wanted to see Davis hanged and got angry at Greeley for this. I don't understand why Greeley helped Davis when he usually advocated harsh treatment of the defeated South. Pfly (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Another bit—amnesty did not necessary mean citizenship. Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, at least, were never again US citizens. Apparently both were given posthumous citizenship in the 1970s by presidents Ford and Carter. Pfly (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The Civil War is often called the last gentleman's, war and executing war leaders and politicians of the defeated was against the attitude toward the treatment of the defeated at the time, which still had traces of chilvalric tendencies extending back to the Middle Ages. Like in the Napoleonic War, Napoleon was exiled for life instead of hanged which probably a lot of the leaders of Europe would have wished for. The attitude was still the same in the 1860s. Uniting the country back together and mending old grudges was a more important issue than punishing the defeated South and their leaders. Even up to WWII, this attitude hadn't changed. The Nazi leaders thought they were going to walk off scotch free with some concessions here and there; there is quote by a Nazi leader, in a documentary of the Nuremburg Trials, that says it perfectly (can't remember it).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of the Radical Republicans had rather harsh proposals, including "driving the nobility" of the South ("several thousand proud, bloated, and defiant rebels") into exile; [33]. Pfly (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• The key to understanding this is Andrew Johnson. The U.S. started its experiment in democracy without many accessible examples, and established a highly unstable system of succession under the assumption that political candidates were simple "the best people", rather than representatives of bitter factions. As a result, as is not uncommon in history, a single assassin was able to undo much of the hard-won effort of millions. Wnt (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That doesn't seem right. Andrew Johnson and Abraham Lincoln were both for reconciling with the South. If Lincoln had lived, he would still have pardoned all the Southern leaders to win the allegiance of the South back. You statement seems more fit for Rutherford B. Hayes who ended the Reconstruction Era so the southern states would give him their vote.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

August 20

Most male-dominated industries

What are the most male-dominated industries in the US (and preferably in the OECD as well) that do NOT　relate to construction, mining, or other physically intensive jobs? For some reason, it's hard to find this information. Thanks. --99.227.95.108 (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you count sports, which are typically segregated by gender ? StuRat (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you're going to make somewhat arbitrary divisions between fields of work, you're probably going to need to define "industry" for us. Would you include, for example, the arts or particular genres of music? Truck driving, certain sports, etc.? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Front line warfare? HiLo48 (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

POTUS? All male so far, though there haven't been that many compared to other professions. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

How about the Roman Catholic priesthood? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What do they produce? Denial? *imagines some priest standing on a construction line, and with each *CRUNCH!* of the lever that he operates, the machine spits out another postcard with a large NO! stamped on it* --79.193.44.13 (talk) 06:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

On a larger scale, the IT industry is pretty male dominated. HiLo48 (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians :) A8875 (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Gay porn? ;) -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Women still work there as fluffers, writers, set staff, etc. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

True. Gay porn actors then? ;P -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriously though, I found this article on AskMen. It lists from 10th to 1st the top-10 male-dominated industries. 10: accounting and finance, 9: comedy, 8: information technology, 7: professional cooking, 6: law enforcement, 5: emergency services, 4: sports media, 3: math, 2: politics, and 1: construction.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I would dispute that politics is an industry. Maths is also dubious. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen a poor politician. ;) -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is one. I am living abroad and only watch the Daily Show with John Stewart and the Colbert Report with Stephen Colbert. So, that is 100.00% male hosts. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to challenge the assumption that mining is a physically intense industrial sector. Sure some jobs at mines might be like that, but for every hard laborer, there's someone like me sitting at a desk googling things. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That's hard work for at least 2 parts of your body. In some people they're in the same place. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I obviously wasn't looking for things like gay porn actors, male hockey players, or front-line soldiers. Besides, in what sense is front-line fighting or hockey playing not intensely physical? Also, since I haven't been able to find anything with any definition of the word "industry", Evanh2008's concern is irrelevant. --99.227.95.108 (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If you use terms that have no definition, that doesn't make our concerns irrelevant, it makes your question unanswerable. The fact that we don't know how you define "industry" is exactly why we didn't understand that you "obviously weren't looking for things like gay porn actors, male hockey players, or front-line soldiers". Any where did you look for a definition of "industry"? Did you try the wikipedia article? What about a dictionary? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My point is, it doesn't matter which definition I use. Find me a list that uses ONE definition--any definition--and I'll be happy. --99.227.95.108 (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This might be helpful: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2011/11/art3full.pdf. Depending on what you think physical means, it looks like trucking or rail transportation could be candidates. Eiad77 (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well you have a list although I'm not sure what area it applies to. Perhaps more importantly, when people provided examples albeit not part of any formal list, you dismissed them as 'I obviously wasn't looking for'. This seems to suggest if someone did provide a list a third party had compiled which included these examples, you would say the list wasn't what you were looking for even though you now say you want a list with any definition and you'd be happy. Perhaps the biggest problem is if you are asking specifically for industries, you're requiring usage of the word and ignoring lists which don't use the word. Nil Einne (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Obsidian mentioned "gay porn actors" as a joke, as indicated by his smilie. In my question, I asked for industries that don't involve physically intensive labor. What counts as "physically intensive" can be debated, but male sports are front-line fighting aren't borderline; any reasonable person would consider them physically intensive. --99.227.95.108 (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Dharmachakra guidelines?

Apart from being a round wheel with spokes and hub, it seems there are no defining guidelines for illustrating a dharmachakra... I have come across all manner of styles in my search. Is there a wrong way? A commonly accepted right way? Certain distinguishing features that must be present? The Christian cross seems almost standardized by comparison. The Masked Booby (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't have any in-depth knowledge in this area, but it seems that an eight-spoked "steering wheel" looking symbol is kind of the Latin Cross of Dharmachakras -- i.e. the simplest and least elaborate version of a symbol which can take on many variant shapes. Of course, particular artistic renderings of the symbol might be associated with particular groups or trends within Buddhism... By the way, I uploaded the image File:Sam Taeguk.jpg which is captioned "Gankyil" on the Dharmachakra article, and am not confident that it's a suitable illustration for Gankyil... AnonMoos (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Corruption in US !!!!!

Anecdotal evidence suggests that corruption in “daily life” in the US is very low – you can’t get away by bribing a policeman, there is no corruption involved in citizen services whether it be getting a birth certificate or a passport. But there is corruption at higher levels that comes to the fore from time to time. How has this situation come about? Is it due to social values? Anti-corruption laws and the legal system? A strong judiciary? I would like your opinions on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.11.143 (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This appears to be identical to a question posted on the Miscellaneous RD -- 71.35.112.120 (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This question also explicitly asks for opinions.203.27.72.5 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Fictional characters of Swedish and Danish businessman

Looking for names of fictional characters of Swedish and Danish businessman in the agriculture and animal Husbandry field. Would appreciate any help183.83.244.183 (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)vsmurthy

I'm confused about your question. Are you asking for:

1. names of fictional farmers, who appear in existing literature
2. suggestions for names you personally might use for farmers in a fiction you yourself are now writing

-- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're asking for the second reason, you should be aware that Europeans' surnames no longer have any relation to a person's job and very little to their economic status. While many surnames might evoke an occupation (like Fletcher, Miller, Carpenter etc.) that's just historical artefact. So for surnames List of most common surnames in Europe#Denmark and #Sweden are as good as any. For given names, see List of most popular given_names#Europe. You could just take one of the popular given names and one of the popular surnames and you've got a credible name (e.g. Frederik Jensen). Hmm, perhaps the given names thing is a bit misleading, as it's for names of children born in ~2010. If your fictional Danish farmer was born in say 1960, we might need to dig a bit to find popular Danish given names then, as given names follow a more volatile fashion. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I am looking for fictional characters in the existing literature183.83.244.183 (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)vsmurthy

In Faceless Killers a farmer is named Johannes Lovgren, his wife is Maria. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Pelle the Conqueror is set on a prosperous Danish farm owned by the Kongstrup family. The Ox is set on a Swedish agricultural estate owned by a character called Svenning Gustafsson. Alansplodge (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

A bit of Googling also confirms that Out of Africa is about a Swedish baron who buys a farm in Kenya and is called Bror von Blixen-Finecke. That rather exhausts my knowledge of agriculture depicted in Scandinavian cinema. Alansplodge (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Out of Africa is a memoir so Bror von Blixen-Finecke is real and not fictional. For real farmers there are plenty in da:Kategori:Landmænd fra Danmark, the Danish language version of the more sparse Category:Danish farmers. I find it mildly amusing that the single Danish farmer in the latter is not among the 195 in the former. The Danish translation of "Old MacDonald Had a Farm" is called "Jens Hansen har en bondegård", so Jens Hansen (a common Danish name) is a famous fictional farmer within Denmark. The Swedish version is called "Per Olsson hade en bonnagård". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Not quite agriculture, but closely related: In the Little House on the Prairie TV series, the character Lars Hanson owned and operated the saw mill. StuRat (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Depends on how far afield you want to go with agriculture, but there was a famous "reaper" in Swedish Filmmaker Ingmar Bergmann's 1957 film The Seventh Seal. --Jayron32 21:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Pippi Longstocking owns a horse, does that count? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Astrid Lindgren, the author of Pippi, wrote plenty of books where the main characters were farmers, set in Sweden at about the year 1900. Emil i Lönneberga's father Anton Svensson would be a prime example, as are the parents of The Six Bullerby Children, though I am not sure they are all named in the books other than by their first name and which house of the village they live in. From other authors, there are for example the characters of The Emigrants (novels) (there are several listed in each article, Karl Oskar Nilsson being the main one). Expect lots of -son names. However, none of my suggestions will match if you're looking with a narrow definition of 'businessman'. They are farmers, basically, not e.g. cattle traders. Many of the books by the Statare authors focus on indentured agricultural labourers, if you are interested in that./81.170.148.21 (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Can map data be copyrighted?

openstreetmap.org says that its "map data" is licensed under CC-by-sa. But I think that "map data" cannot be copyrighted, because there is no creativity made during its creation (at least it belongs to the person(s) who designed the road system represented in the data). Is that argument correct? What are your opinions? 171.228.101.11 (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think your underlying premise is incorrect - drafting a map requires a great deal of creativity in use of symbols, colours, fonts, placing of labels etc. In any case, the Ordnance Survey certainly believes its maps are protected by copyright. Its copyright page says "Ordnance Survey mapping is protected by virtue of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Our mapping is protected for 50 years from the end of the year in which the map was published." Gandalf61 (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not what I mean. My question is that whether the information used to create the map may be copyrighted, not specific representations of the map. Write English in Cyrillic (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, map data can be copyrighted. The government of Canada also claims copyright over its maps, [34]. Personally, I'm not sure it should be, but that is another matter. Pfly (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC

US jurisdiction: The exact representation of a map can obviously be copyrighted: what colors are chosen, what symbols are chosen, what font the street names are in and exactly where it is placed, etc. The deeper question is whether I, a separate cartographer, can use your copyrighted map as the basis for drawing up a totally new and different map. There have been court cases about this very issue — see trap street for some discussion of it. My understanding is that it is legally murky ground. Copyright is meant to protect expressions of facts, not the underlying facts themselves. And yet, with maps (as with many other things), the idea/expression divide is awfully intertwined. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

In the EU the database bit is covered by database rights. Other places are gradually coming round to that point of view rather than using copyright for the purpose but the US has had anything like that stopped by factional interests. In fact the whole business of patents, copyrights and databases is a total mess, the patents bit is about the cleanest and I'm sure people know about the troubles there with the patent trolls. As to copyright I guess Mickey Mouse says it all. Dmcq (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The basic answer, as a matter of principle, is that maps, being that collection of colours, lines and symbols, can be copyrighted but map "data", i.e. the information about what's where which is encoded in such maps, is not protected by copyright. Speaking generally, therefore, you cannot photocopy a map created by someone without permission, but you can draw your own map using their map for information about where things are. The answers above that talk about whether copyright is claimed over one map or another miss the point. However the precise division between what is protected and what is not varies between countries, and of course the more you copy of the origianl map the more likely you are infringing the copyright. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That is the "basic" answer but it is not, in fact, the correct answer. Even in the US the idea/expression divide is quite murky. There have been lawsuits over this as recently as a decade or two ago; it isn't clear-cut at all. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be clear in the UK - see Centrica and Ordnance Survey settle AA copyright case, in which the AA had used data from OS surveying which included fictitious entries, in this case trap streets, included to prevent plagiarism. It cost them £20 million. Alansplodge (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

In a common law jurisdiction, a settlement is often not considered to provide 'clear' results, since it could easily arise because the defendent perceived the cost of them settling would be less then them trying to challenge a lawsuit. Also in a borderline case, if both the defendent and plantiff feel they have a fair chance of winning and losing, they may feel it's better to settle somewhere in the middle. (In fact in such cases the defendant would potentially settle for less then half of what they may expect if they would win, recognising that establishing case law not in their favour could easily cost far more.) Of course in some cases the law is considered clear enough that it's unlikely to ever go to court. Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It has been said that the Thomas Guides place non-existent streets and other features into their maps so that they can determine if their copyright has been broken. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Some good replies already, but AFAIK OpenStreetMap themselves are changing from CC-BY-SA (which it's not clear is very useful for them) to an open database license, to protect their database right better (presumably something they think is more legally defensible). - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 19:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Using OS map data, for example, to create your own uncopyrighted map is an incorrect statement. Anything derived from OS data still needs to carry their Copyright. Where I work, if we want to create uncopyrighted data, we have to use data we acquired, for example aerial photography and digitise off that to get underived data. If I were to draw around my house on an OS map, technically this would still hold their copyright. 195.49.180.85 (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a question--did the U.S. govt. create a new National Atlas in 1997 in order to prevent these types of copyright problems (since government-produced materials are in the public domain)? Futurist110 (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Westley Allan Dodd

I saw an episode of the show Most Evil where Westley Allan Dodd was featured, and they said that his father knew of his deviant sexual desires from father and son chats. Does that make him responsible for the crimes his son committed since he sought no help for his son? Nienk (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Morally: perhaps. Legally: probably not. Assuming he knew about the actual crimes (and not just the horrible desires that motivated the crimes) then that comes under misprision (and in particular misprision of felony). Both are rather incomplete articles which don't talk specifically enough about the jurisdictions in question - but, if we take them in general, they suggest that just knowing about the crime isn't sufficient: for the father himself to have committed a crime: he would have had to take some active step to conceal or abet the crime. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Two problems with this: one, there is no kind of "help" that is known to stop someone like Dodd from wanting to harm children. Even castration, as useful as it sounds in theory, doesn't take away the perpetrator's base urge to harm kids; it only takes away one of the perpetrator's tools. Two, blaming the parent is basically looking for a scapegoat instead of an explanation. Some people are just bad, and there's no way to stop them from doing evil short of confinement or execution. It's also difficult to impossible to do anything about a man who says he wants to hurt kids; the cops' hands are tied, and the potential murderer could easily claim that the person reporting the "desires" is lying for their own purposes. --NellieBly (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Nellie, saying "Some people are just bad" is also failing to look for an explanation. If we can decide that the actions of certain people are capable of explanation (I'm not talking about condoning them) but those of others are utterly beyond comprehension, who gets to decide who's in which group? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The courts, of course. The way I look at it is that genetics and environment are not the only factors in human development, there's also a random element. For example, even identical twins raised together can sometimes have different personalities, even so far as one being heterosexual and one being homosexual. StuRat (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The courts? They're interested in the "why" issues, only insofar as determining the degree of guilt. If there are mitigating circumstances, there's a chance they'll be given a reduced sentence, or found guilty of a lesser charge, or acquitted entirely, but possibly due to being of unsound mind, and they still end up being incarcerated indefinitely. But really getting to the bottom of what led to the person committing the vile actions in the first place is not the job of courts but of the psychological fraternity, who can spend many decades on individual cases, often fruitlessly. Just because we haven't got to the answer yet, and may never get to it with our current methods, this does not permit us to explain it away with "he is just a bad person". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The courts do seek to determine motive, inasmuch as is possible. The cause may be that a cosmic ray struck a cell in the developing embryonic brain and caused a change in that cell. However, after the fact, I don't know how you could ever hope to nail down such a cause. So, for our purposes, it's just random. StuRat (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a left-field possibility, given that the causes of human (deviant and non-deviant) behaviour are generally considered more likely to be found in earlier events in our histories. Particularly, but not exclusively, those involving other people. Particularly, but not exclusively, our families of origin.

What do you mean "for our purposes"? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If it's not possible to know the exact cause, we just consider an event to be random. For example, a rain drop hitting a particular spot rather than another. It's not truly random, but is so complex and unpredictable that it might as well be. StuRat (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Fiscal projections/estimation

I would like to know if there are any guides or information about how to go about making a fiscal projection. For example when the Congressional Budget Office estimates the costs of a proposed piece of legislation, what is their methodology? I realize they use complex economic models, but maybe there is a guide someone that could summarize the general idea?

Specifically, I am wondering how I would estimate the amount of revenue lost from taxes and increased entitlement (Medicaid, etc.) expenditure if I knew that an industry would decline by X amount and employment would be reduced by Y number of jobs. Calculating the direct losses is relatively straightforward, but how should I account for the ripple effects (e.g. decreased demand due to lower income)? Eiad77 (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this helpful? (from the CBO's site) Hot Stop 03:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I looked at that earlier and saw that it said that they publish their methodology. But when I looked at their actual estimates/projections, they don't seem to include a methodology. For example here:http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43471-hr6079.pdf. It's more of a summary, but I don't see how they get the actual numbers.Eiad77 (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting them? Or maybe get in touch with an economy professor at a local college. Hot Stop 13:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Start with history: so much revenue per source and so much expenditure per department or program, per year. Second, evaluate how changes in the economy (growth, unemployment, inflation, interest rates, minimum wage, demographics, educational attainment, etc) affect each side of the balance sheet. Note that this is generally done on an economy-wide basis, rather than an industry-specific one, except (perhaps) if the proposed law is highly specific, such as wheat subsidies. Third, make projections for each significant indicator out the desired number of years. This gives you the baseline projection, the “if present trends continue” number.

Next, evaluate the impact on each indicator of the proposed change in law, and the expected revenue or legislated expenditure required to fulfill the law. Finally, adjust the baseline projection for the expected changes. Oh, and unless you're the Congressional Budget Office, don't forget to inject some political bias! DOR (HK) (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but how would I get the impact? For example, in your wheat subsidy example. How would I account for the increased amount of income tax resulting from the increased employment? How would I account for the increased demand in other industries? How would I account for the increased spending done by newly hired employees? How would I account for the increased profits in related industries (e.g. bakeries)? All these changes would cause changes in revenues/expenditures.Eiad77 (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you build an economic model with lots of assumptions and hope no one looks at them too closely. Seriously, budget projections are a huge amount of art, a lot of math and a fair amount of guesswork. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Capture of Guam

Following the bloodless Capture of Guam by American forces in the Spanish-American War, the Spanish garrison and government officials were taken on board American ships as POWs, and an American citizen was installed as temporary governor of the island. Were any American troops left behind to guard or maintain order on the island, or to protect the new governor? Our article mentions that the four ships to take part in the capture sailed on to Manila, but it doesn't mention if their entire complements went with them. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

According to Francisco Portusach Martínez citing this New York Times article, the Spanish simply refused to recognise him immediately after the Americans left, so it doesn't sound like he had any troops to enforce his position of governor. It also goes on to say that the spanish were subsequently massacred by the natives, but no mention of American troops, so I think they left nothing other than a verbal instruction that Portusach was to be their governor. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, according to José Sisto, Portusach was the only American citizen on the island after the American ships left. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact Sisto's justification for overthrowing Portusach was that the American occupation was void because, "the 1884 Berlin Conference stated that a country had to actively occupy a territory with a military force to claim ownership of a seized territory," so, no, they didn't leave any troops behind at all. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

August 21

Islam

If a disaster destroyed Mecca, what would Muslims do, since it wouldn't be possible for them to make the Hajj any more? Would they think that they're all going to hell? --168.7.231.202 (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Jihad, I guess. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please guess elsewhere - that isn't even an attempt at a rational answer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I suspect they would rebuild it at the same location; after all any disaster wouldn't erase the latitude and longitude from existance, merely the buildings and stuff like that. That can all be rebuilt. There are some irreplacable relics which are a part of the Hajj, such as the Black Stone within the Kaaba, but it is likely that Islam would survive and adapt. Religion is somewhat plastic, and when major events like that happen, the religion changes. Consider what happened in Judaism after the Destruction of the Temple, Judaism changed and adapted. It would provide a good model for what would happen if a similar fate befell Mecca. --Jayron32 03:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. Firstly, Mecca is a location - a geographic coordinate, How do you destroy a coordinate? In any case, "The Hajj is the annual pilgrimage to Mecca that all Muslims are required to make at least once in life, provided that a person is physically and financially capable of doing so". [35] If Mecca didn't exist, Muslims wouldn't be 'physically and financially capable' of doing it, and would be exempt. If there is a religion that insists that you will 'go to hell' if you don't do something that nobody can do, I can't think of one offhand. If anything I suspect that in this regard at least, Islam is a little more tolerant in its 'keep out of hell' requirements than those imposed on other 'People of The Book'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)The Hajj is only required if it is reasonably possible, so if Mecca was gone every muslim would be excused. But what sort of disaster are you talking about? Even if the city was leveled they could still attend the site, and structures can usually be rebuild. Unless it was underwater or swallowed up by a subduction zone or left radioactive or otherwise poisoned, then nothing would stop people rebuilding or just attending the site. If the disaster was natural, many of the faithful may take it as some sort of sign. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(entirely speculative sci-fi scenario) What if Earth were destroyed but there were Muslim colonists on other planets/moons? --168.7.235.250 (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

See above answers. They are excused if it isn't physically or financially feasible. Mingmingla (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You may also be interested in Malaysian_National_Space_Agency#Muslims_in_space and List_of_Muslim_astronauts#Praying_towards_Mecca_in_space. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I could see a situation where Israel is attacked from all sides, about to be wiped out, threatens to nuke Mecca if they don't back off, then carries out the threat, leaving Mecca destroyed and irradiated. I wonder if Moslems would still visit, even though it meant an increased risk of cancer. StuRat (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless it was a salted nuclear weapon, the site wouldn't be very radioactive after a relatively short time, so the Hajj would at worst be put on hold for one or two years. Also note that Mecca is important to Muslims that might otherwise not have any major issues with Israel, like Indonesians, Malaysians and Pakistanis, so pissing them off might just result in a nuclear power weighing in against Israel. It would make more sense to use the nukes against military targets or mabye civilian populations of the countries that are actually attacking them (I doubt Saudi Arabia is going to attack them). 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

One of the explicit exemptions to Hajj is if you feel that it will endanger your life to go on Hajj. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

---

By the way, the Wahhabites of Saudi Arabia have actually destroyed a large number of former subsidiary holy sites in Mecca and Medina (houses and tombs associated with members of Muhammad's family and other prominent early Muslims), because they didn't fit with the Wahhabi version of Islam -- see Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites... AnonMoos (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe there was a point where the Umayyad Caliphate (then based in Damascus) lost control of Mecca. Their response, I gather, was to build the Dome of the Rock. 58.111.229.109 (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

More interesting question would be an earthquake at the "al-aqsa mosque," as Jerusalem has faced very severe earthquakes in the past and experts predict an event worse one is coming in the next few years. I think that's a more likely scenario than Mecca. --Activism1234 22:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be interesting to hear from an actual Muslim on this question. One would think they would have contingency plans in case of disasters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm thanks for bringing that up. Maybe I'll go ask a Muslim friend of mine. If you're a cynic, you don't have to believe I actually did that, but I'm not lying to ya. --Activism1234 22:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My wife's a muslim. She hasn't been and doesn't plan to ever go. Her family are all too poor to make the trip, and I would offer to help (since I'd be interested just to go and see what it's all about), but she shot that idea down. I suspect they would want to go if they could as some are quite devout. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're non-Muslim, then you would not be allowed to go on the pilgrimage, or even allowed near the city of Mecca at all (see the infamous "Christian bypass"). (Also, if you're non-Muslim and your wife is Muslim, then your marriage is theoretically in violation of traditional Islamic law.) -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but I would just say the shahadah before I go. Also, even though our marriage is a clear cut violation of Islamic law, her family, (including her brother-in-law who has some sort of Islamic scholarly title) don't seem to have any problem with it at all. Her mother always said how I was so much better than the last guy (who was a muslim). Even though I'm not Christian either, we had to have a certified Catholic marriage in Indonesia as the authorities there require some sort of religious ceremony and the Muslim one was just patently too much hassle. Her passport still lists her as a Muslim though. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's the response my friend gave me. "Possibly we might have to do other pilgrimages in other mosques 3) hajj being destroyed is a sign of doomsday there would be mass panic about the arrival and of the messiah and the antichrist."

Hope that helps! --Activism1234 01:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Muslim names for "the messiah and the antichrist" in an apocalyptic context are Mahdi and Dajjal... -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I quoted exactly word for word what I was told. That may be true, I was just using a quote. --Activism1234 21:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that he was trying to phrase things in terms that would be more comprehensible to you, but he quasi-Christianized the terminology so that it would be difficult to correlate the words he used with the relevant Wikipedia articles. AnonMoos (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Although there are similarities between the concept of 'Messiah' and 'Mahdi', Islam still considers Jesus to be the Messiah (Masih), being distinct from the Mahdi. Both the Masih and the Mahdi are said to arrive in the end-times. - Lindert (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The story of the Qarmatians might be relevant here, they sacked Mecca in the 9th century. The pilgrimage sites in Mecca are obviously a lot more extensive now, but I'm sure they could rebuild and everyone would get on with their lives, just like they did then. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Romley

Where can I find information about the meaning of the first name "Romley", like in Charles Romley Alder Wright GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 07:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It's probably the surname of an ancestor, likely a female one. It used to be very common for surnames lost through marriage to be preserved by being given as middle names. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Which seems to be an uncommon surname from the north of England (Cumberland, to be specific). It may have originally been an Anglicization/corruption of Romilly - or, far less likely, Romney (Romney is Kentish in origin, so from the other end of the country). It could also be derived from a local geographical feature. --NellieBly (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The latter I thought too. GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 13:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Punishment for having caused monks to break their vows

This is a hypothetical question pertaining to France in the early modern age. If a woman was suspected to have had sexual intercourse with monks (or indeed the other way around, with a man and nuns), was she then considered to have had committed a religious crime, that is to say a form of heresy? She would in that case after all have made the monks to break their vows. And could she be arrested by the church rather than the royal authorities? Avignon was at the time a papal province, I have understood. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

She made the monks break their vows? They couldn't say "No"? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]}

I am sorry; I am from Sweden, so I may have used the wrong English words occasionally. I don't understand. But do you have an answer? This is not a pornographic question, but a serious historical one, even if it is about sex. Please respect that. --Aciram (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Indeed. The Third Council of Constantine (accepted by the Catholic Church) decrees that "A monk convicted of fornication, or who takes a wife for the communion of matrimony and for society, is to be subjected to the penalties of fornicators, according to the canons." (source), but says nothing specifically about the other partner involved. To equate this fornication with 'heresy' seems to me a little far-fetched. - Lindert (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The women did not "cause" the problem - the monks were responsible. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, but that does not absolve the women from responsibility. If a single man sleeps with a married woman, the woman breaks her marriage vow, but the man is equally at fault, despite not having made any commitment. - Lindert (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be heresy but sexual questions were always under ecclesiastical jurisdiction (adultery, homosexuality, incest, etc), so yes, that would have been a crime tried in a church court. I guess it depends on the time period, since "early modern" is a lengthy period. It may also depend on the order of monks as well, but fornication would certainly be forbidden in any monastic rule. It's also certainly possible by the standards of early modern law that a woman who seduced a monk would be accused or witchcraft or of enticing him some other way, so the monk may not have been at fault. Of course it didn't work the other way, if a married woman was seduced by a man, it was still the woman's fault! (I actually know some people who work on this exact question for medieval monks and nuns, I should ask them...it's funny when a monk and a nun get caught together...) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not really a moral question, but a factual one. Am I to understand, that the woman would be tried for fornication by a church court? Would it be the same for the monks, or would it differ? If this happened in France in the 18th century, would she then perhaps be arrested by the papal Avignon court? AdamBishop, do please ask them, it would be much appreciated; you can give me their answer on my talk page if you wish. I thought it would be considered heresy, because the vows was after all considered holy in a religious sense? --Aciram (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It would almost certainly be fornication, and perhaps also adultery (especially for nuns), since they had taken vows to the church. Heresy is a very different crime, which doesn't really have anything to do with breaking monastic vows. Adam Bishop (talk) 8:19 am, Today (UTC−7)

Just a small point: The Avignon Papacy lasted from 1309 to 1376. It was long gone by the 18thC. Rojomoke (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

However, Avignon did continue to be one of the Papal States until the French Revolution. --Jayron32 16:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The punishment for having broken the vows of celibacy

Was there any particular punishment practised by the Catholic church for monks and nuns who had broken their vows of celibacy? Was this considered a form of heretic crime against religion? And if the monk or nun had broken their vows with some one not a monk or nun, how was that outsider punished? Please note, that I am referring to the time period before 1789. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It might be easier to keep these questions in one section, but in any case, no, that was not heresy. Like I mentioned above, it might depend on time and place, and the specific monastic order, but flogging was a typical punishment, or being expelled from the order. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Breaking the vows would probably be considered "sinful", a personal failing. Publicly advocating the breaking of vows by others (or of violating any church doctrine) would probably be considered heresy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not heresy either. Violating a doctrine is one thing, but still probably not heresy. In this case violating a monastic rule is certainly not heresy, nor is it even likely to violate a church doctrine. Advocating that others break the monastic rule would get you in trouble, but not for heresy. It would be heresy to deny a specific doctrine, or to teach something contrary to a specific doctrine (usually something more abstract than chasing after women). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we're saying the same thing. To publicly proclaim that the church has got it wrong, with respect to Biblical doctrine, is heresy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You might want to read about Urbain Grandier, somewhat notorious for his opposition to clerical celibacy, and how he ended up being treated. eldamorie (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerical celibacy (also not a doctrine, and so not heretical to oppose) is not the same thing as a monastic rule of celibacy, which is what the question asks about. 86.169.212.200 (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerical celibacy is a church doctrine (or rule might be the better term), which they readily admit is not a Biblical doctrine - it's just how the church wants to operate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't quite true that the Catholic Church doesn't have biblical backing for their belief in clerical celibacy. [1 Corinthians 7 contains passages that clearly indicate that celibacy is the preferred state; Paul advises marriage as the second best state over celibacy, and urges those who have the strength to use his own example of Celibacy as the model. For those that find they cannot live the celibate life, he advises marriage, but only as a "second best" option. Which is not to say that the Catholic Church is necessarily right or wrong in enforcing clerical celibacy, but there are clearly parts of the bible which could be easily used to justify the policy. Especially since the instructions come from Paul, whose epistles spend a large portion of their text dedicated to the instructions for churches and their leaders. --Jayron32 03:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerical celibacy is not a Church doctrine. It is a discipline, that is a practice which is required in a particular time and place, but is not held to be universally necessary. It is not a doctrine because it is not a belief. It is not heretical to oppose, because it is not a belief, let alone a core belief universally defined. Opposing a relevant doctrine would involve opposing that celibacy is a good and desirable practice among Christians, especially those in pastoral roles. As shown by Jayron's reference, that is a doctrine with a Biblical basis, based on Sacred Tradition. It would be possible to heretically oppose those doctrine, but opposing a discipline is not heresy. Requiring clerical celibacy is a matter of canonical law, and is only required in the Western Catholic Church, and even there is not completely universal (just the norm). This is different to, for example, only ordaining men, which is a matter of doctrine in that the Church officially teaches that it is not possible to ordain women. 86.169.212.200 (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going by what a prominent Catholic spokesman said on a conservative talk show some time back: "Celibacy is a church doctrine which they could change tomorrow if they wanted to. Men-only as priests is a scriptural doctrine which will never change." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither statement is fundementally true. One can find bible passages to both disallow and to allow women church leaders, as well as clerical celibacy, and how a particular denomination chooses to interpret those passages, and what value to place on them, says more about the church values than about any universal principle. The more time one spends reading scripture with an open mind and heart (and trying, hard as it may be, to read it without any personal filters) the more one finds conflicts within the scripture itself, and muddiness in interpreting that scripture. That doesn't mean that, as a Christian, I don't believe it isn't all true. That means that, sometimes, I find it hard to understand how it is all true, but also have Faith that God knows, and perhaps that is enough. But one cannot deny that scriptures are rarely clear and often internally inconsistant, which is why one denomination can make a claim that its practices are biblically-based, and another can make a claim that its different practices also are. Paul himself anticipates this problem, when he states in Romans 14 "Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters." and later in the same chapter "So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves." That is, there are going to be "disputable matters", and the properly behaving Christian doesn't cause conflict over these matters. We're all going to make mistakes in interpreting scripture, and my mistakes are not less problematic than your mistakes. Knowing we're all going to make such mistakes means it is futile to condemn others for their misinterpretations when I am making misinterpretations myself. Later in Romans 14 Paul says "So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves." In other words, before you condemn someone else by criticising a bad interpretion, consider that you yourself may be the one in error. --Jayron32 14:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Was the French inquisition abolished in 1772?

I seem to remember, that I once read about the Inquisition in France. According to what I remember, the French Inquisition was not as strict as others, and by the time it was finally abolished in 1772, it had in reality stopped being active for many years. Is this true? When was the French inquisition abolished? Thank you--Aciram (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that during the 18th century, cases of blasphemy was handled by the local judges rather than an ecclestiastical court, as the case against Jean-François de la Barre shows, so I would guess that a French Inquisition only existed by name, and not by deed, until it was finally abolished in 1772. However de la Barre was a nobleman, so it is possible that the judicial jurisdictions regarding blasphemy for commoners would have been different. But concerning your title question, yes, the French Inquisition was abolished in 1772. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The authority of the Papal Avignon in France

Did the Papal province of Avignon (I seem to remember Avignon was a Papal province until 1789) have any authority over religious crimes committed in France during the early modern age? Thank you--Aciram (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Church courts don't work like that; ecclesiastical courts had jurisdiction over their own dioceses, so the diocese of Avignon was responsible for that diocese, and that was all. But even if Avignon claimed special authority as a papal enclave (and I don't think they did), the Kingdom of France, secular and ecclesiastical authorities included, would never have allowed them to exercise that claim anywhere else. (The papal enclave at Avignon had an uneasy relationship with France, to say the least.) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. That seems simple enough. I assumed the papal authorities would automatically have authority over all clerical matters, no matter were they were. I suppose a religious crime in France would rather be handled by the French church then? The French inquisition? --Aciram (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about the French inquisition at this period, but inquisitions in general were meant to root out heretics, if I'm not mistaken. The local church court would deal with simple religious crimes. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Avignon (as well as the Comtat Venaissin) was not part of France until the Revolution, although from frwiki it appears that Louis XI, and most other French kings beginning in the 16th century, were the de facto rulers of the territory. Beginning in 1691, the secular government was abolished and Avignon was controlled directly by the papal legate, so it would appear that at least in Avignon the church had complete power. Elsewhere in France it's less likely that that was the case due to the influence of gallicanism, which suborned ecclesiastical power to the French monarchy. eldamorie (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as the Inquisition goes... I am not really sure that it is correct to talk about a "French Inquisition" as if it were a distinct thing or phenomenon... unlike the Spanish Inquisition (which had its own administration and authority). I also think it a misnomer to talk about a "French Church" existing at this time, as if it were a distinct ecclesiastical entity... yes, there were some cultural distinctions between the Church in France and the Church in Italy or the Church in Germany (etc)... and we can certainly identify a French faction in Church politics and in the Church hierarchy, but administratively and judicially each diocese was an distinct entity unto itself. Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Iraq-Afghan relations pre 9/11

Leave to one side all the bunk about Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda links.

What was the diplomatic relationship like between Saddam's Iraq and Afghanistan under the Taliban?

They were both enemies of Iran as well as America. That much I know.

But did Saddam and the Taliban collaborate at all? The religious enmity between the Shia mullahs of Iran and the Sunni Taliban precluded any accord between them, despite their mutual hostility towards America.

The Taliban's philosophical gulf with Saddam's Baath party was far wider than their divide with Iran. Did this divide likewise prevent an understanding between Afghanistan and Iraq?

Or was Saddam's Sunnism and his hatred of Iran enough to drive him into the Taliban's arms?

Any knowledgable input is welcome. Knowledge backed up by books/journals/newspapers and other citeable things, even more so :). Risingrain (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

From an ideological perspective, the Ba'ath party is, for all intents and purposes, a secular party that was initially formed and dominated by Arab Christians. In the early years of the Iraqi Ba'ath party it was mostly Shia but slowly came to be dominated by nominal Sunnis. Their goals are Pan-Arabism, Arab socialism and anti-imperialism. They view fundamentalist Islam (Sunni or Shia) as just as much a threat to their power as "western imperialism". As a fundamentalist, non-Arab (the Taliban are Pashtuns) entity, the Taliban would have been less than ideal as an ally for Saddam's Iraq. In fact, the government of Iraq never recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the UAE were the only countries to do so). Likewise, fundamentalist Muslim groups such as the Taliban view the Ba'athists mostly with contempt for suppressing fundamentalists movements so the Taliban would not have viewed Iraq as a particularly helpful ally either.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 18:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That said, Realpolitik has a tendency to make people and countries work with sworn enemies when they deem it to be in their interests. Not sure if this happened to be the case in this particular situation. But ideologically, no, they would not have been natural friends. 58.111.229.109 (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was realpolitik I was wondering about. The Iranian mullahs and Libya's Gaddafi were allies, even though ideologically they could not have been more different. Syria and Iraq were both ruled by Baathists, but they were bitter enemies.

Iraq and Afghanistan had no territorial disputes or history of war. They also had a mutual enemy (Iran). Their ideologies were different but that was no bar to an alliance, and let's face it in history it rarely has been.

So, I guess what I'm asking is: did Saddam and the Taliban, in spite of their ideological disaffinity, attempt to gang up against Iran? Risingrain (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that there was ever a military alliance between Saddam and the Taliban, but perhaps there might have been some negotiations between them about establishing closer ties. Futurist110 (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199757,00.html - Here's some further info. :) Futurist110 (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Stating that a link from Fox "News" is info is a rather unnatural stretching of the meaning of the word info, n'est ce pas? --Jayron32 02:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of Fox News either, but it was the quickest news source I could find at the moment and this info appears to generally be accurate, since it's quoting another source. Futurist110 (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, since you opened the door I'm just wondering if you'd have made the same snarky comment if he had linked a story from MSNBC or CNN. They're just as biased (if not more so) in the other direction which doesn't make them any more, or less, trustworthy than FOX.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 03:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I never had the chance to make that comment, since no one used those sources. Would you like to make a link to an MSNBC article so I can make the same joke? Though, at this point, it wouldn't be funny. But I can make it if it would set your suspicious mind to ease. --Jayron32 03:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Using chains to block rivers

The Hudson River Chains were used in the American Revolutionary War from 1776–82 to block ships' access up the river. A similar device was used to guard the Chao Phraya in Siam/Thailand during the 17th–19th centuries. (Looking briefly through search results, Chevalier de Forbin mentioned using a chain to block the river during the Makassar pirate attack on the fort at Bangkok in 1686, and such chains were still employed when tensions against the British were rising in the mid-19th century.) These were most likely separate parallel developments. Are there records of such devices having been used elsewhere? --101.109.223.81 (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Golden Horn#History mentions perhaps the most famous. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Other examples given in this forum include the River Dart at Dartmouth Castle in Devon (15th century), Fowey in Cornwall, the River Medway at Upnor Castle in Kent (1585) and the Grand Harbour at Valetta in Malta. Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Much more information on the history of chain defences in Chaining the Hudson: The Fight for the River in the American Revolution by Lincoln Diamant (page 87) - assuming that you can see this result from Google books. Alansplodge (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Another example (a boom, not exactly a chain) was at the Siege of Derry. In that case, the royal navy successfully broke the boom, allowing their ships to sail up-river and relieve the city. The boom in question was apparently built by a clever french naval officer, Bernard Desjean, Baron de Pointis. 58.111.229.109 (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Harbour chains were typically found in any medieval port. Jpgordon mentioned Constantinople above, but there was also one in Acre and Damietta, for two other examples that immediately spring to mind. (The Latin word was "catena" but we don't seem to have an article about them specifically.) Adam Bishop (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The Raid on the Medway is an English example from the 1660s. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Why doesn't Israel have the right to the Gaza Strip and West Bank

Since Jewish militias won a Civil War, the winner of a war takes it all isn't it that way? Shouldn't Israel have the right to those lands as well? Nienk (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The modern law of war (established after say Germany tried the same thing) forbids this. Hcobb (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

See Right of conquest for more details. As to Israel's claim to the west bank, I'd say that's a somewhat more complex topic. If Israel wants to annex the west bank, it would be forced to give its' (Palestinian) residents citizenship, including the right to vote in Israeli elections. Aint gonna happen, methinks. That said, if such a proposal was put to a (Palestinian) referendum, I could see it winning, crazy as this may sound. The Israelis would be the ones to resist. Israel has long faced a struggle to be both "Jewish" and "Democratic" at the same time. Enfranchising the West Bank population would quite likely make this task impossible, as it would largely obliterate Israel's Jewish majority.

And as far as the Gaza Strip is concerned, Israel wouldn't even be remotely interested in doing any such thing. The place is generally considered a hellhole. Pretty much all Israel wants on the Gaza front is quiet.

As an aside, I believe International law still does recognize certain rights (as well as responsibilities) on the part of an occupying power. I remember reading that an occupying power may seize land for genuine military needs, for example. Can someone clarify this? 58.111.229.109 (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/18/israel-reject-settlements-report

The Levy panel recommended overturning Israeli laws, military orders, and precedents that are based on the law of occupation. It called on the government to allow settlement construction on expropriated Palestinian lands, subject to the approval of the security services, rejecting a 1979 Supreme Court ruling that the Israeli military could not expropriate Palestinian land for the purpose of establishing a civilian settlement rather than for security needs.

Lots of fun stuff. "Do onto others as has been done unto you", I suppose. Hcobb (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Funny. The Hebrew version of the report actually doesn't say that stuff, and makes a really strong case using international law why settlements are legal. Well, doesn't matter, since Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu buried that report and disregarded it. --Activism1234 19:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As for the OP, the Gaza Strip is irrelevant anymore, as Israel unilaterally withdrew from it in 2005, and evicted all Israelis living there. Israel has done the same to certain settlements in the West Bank, but a unilateral withdrawal may be unlikely, as really a final peace status is needed to decide on those issues. Now, I noticed someone said above that you can't win territory through war, but the counterargument would be that the territory it was won from, which was Jordan and Egypt, had been occupying that territory in an occupation that the international community didn't recognize, and a Palestinian state or idea wasn't established then, and also that the territory was won in self-defense. It's a disputed topic, and you'll hear people saying both things, but I like to focus more importantly on what should be done in the future to resolve it. Hope this helps. --Activism1234 19:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, for the OP, Israel does have certain rights to the West Bank under the Oslo Accords in 1993, which was signed with the Palestinians. Israel has full control over Area C (about 60% of the West Bank; also contains the settlements, which themselves are about 1% of the West Bank), and certain rights over Area B. Under the accords, the Palestinian Authority has full control over Area A, which is where most Palestinian cities are (except in Gaza, which a different Palestinian rival government controls). Since then, a number of treaties have been proposed, for example by President Clinton and Israeli President Ehud Barak, or by Israeli President Ehud Olmert in 2008 (over 90%), that would mean for Israel to withdraw from more of Area C and give more in the hands of the Palestinian Authority, but these proposals have been rejected by the Palestinian Authority. Hope this helps. --Activism1234 19:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that Israel ignores international law when not in their interest, in any case. I've often thought it would be in their interest to implement a policy that each time they are attacked, they will seize a small chunk of the West Bank or Gaza Strip (whichever launched the attack), evict the residents, annex it to Israel, and move the wall to enclose it. This would make attacks by the terrorists look less "heroic" to the Palestinians. This would, of course, be called "ethnic cleansing", but, as I've said, Israel doesn't care about such things. StuRat (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Everyone ignores (or reinterprets) international law when it's in their interest to do so. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In the case of tiny nations, international law may be their only chance to win disputes with their neighbors, so they tend to support it wholeheartedly. StuRat (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I.e. it's never in their interest to ignore it, so that doesn't contradict my statement. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That's extremely incorrect and so disgustingly biased against a country, would never happen, and the only annexed territory has been Jerusalem, Judaism's holiest site which was abused under Jordanian control, and the Golan Heights, claimed by Syria. --Activism1234 19:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing usually refers to a population decreasing, not increasing. --Activism1234 19:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe forced relocation has been called ethnic cleansing. Also, moving Israelis in might not be wise, as they would come under immediate threat. StuRat (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Btw, that "wall" you're referring to is actually 96% fence (another example of bias) and only a "wall" in areas where it came under heavy fire during The Second Intifada. Since it was constructed, terrorism has decreased significantly, and has saved countless of lives, and that includes Arab lives who are also killed in terrorism. Of course, some people think that Israelis don't get human rights, in which case I'd understand if saving people from terrorism is irrelevant. But really, when you start using these terms and ignoring the facts around them, it paints a one-sided extremely biased and incorrect picture to delegitimiez a legitimate country. --Activism1234 19:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In those places it might be wise to build an actual wall, as they would come under immediate threat. StuRat (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

An oft-made point - International law isn't "law" as such. It's really just a bunch of politically-written conventions and treaties, which pretty much everyone ignores when they're strong enough (or needed enough) to get away with it. The world of "International Law" has as much (or more) to do with politics and politicians as it does with courts, lawyers, and the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.229.109 (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean, exactly like all other laws... --Jayron32 20:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, with domestic law in a democratic country, one hopes that at least the law-enforcement authorities will be somewhat de-politicized. In the world of International "law", that's clearly an absolute pipe dream. Even when we're talking about a murder, politics can often see those responsible walk scot-free. The life of a human being is but a small pawn in the bigger game. Alas to humanity :( 58.111.229.109 (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Theoretically speaking, Israel can annex all of the West Bank and Gaza. However, if Israel does that (even only in regards to the West Bank), then it will need to give all the Palestinian Arabs there Israeli citizenship in order to avoid becoming an international pariah. Israel isn't going to do that, since having several million more Palestinian Arabs with Israeli citizenship will end Israel's existence as a Jewish state, while not giving them citizenship in the event of an annexation would open Israel up to the allegations of apartheid and discrimination. Thus, annexing the West Bank and/or Gaza is a no-win situation for Israel, since either way it acts it gets screwed (and expelling all the Palestinian Arabs from these territories would make Israel a huge international pariah as well). I hope that my response helped in answering your question. Futurist110 (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

children's book

I am trying to find the name of a book that I read over and over as a child. Unfortunately, I can't remember many details. It would've been in the late 70s or early 80s. The book was about a child who liked to sleep late/was lazy. I think the family was animals of some kind. One day the kid wakes up and the family has moved to their new house and left him/her behind while s/he was asleep. I don't think it was supposed to be horrendously cruel. The kid made friends and had adventures and eventually found his/her family. I think there was a swamp or pond involved somehow. Anyway, I know it's a stretch, but thought I'd ask because I'd really like to read it again and see how closely it matches my memories. Ingrid (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In which country would you have read it Ingrid? And at what age (or, since you shouldn't ask a lady her age, what age was it aimed at)? Was it a picture book or more like a novel? The plot vaguely rings a bell for me (would have been late 80s to early 90s in the UK) but I can't for the life of me think of a title. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course! Sorry I didn't think to provide that information. It would've been the US. I can't remember what age, but I'm guessing early reader. Somewhere between a board book and chapter book. I have associations with Frog & Toad, which I think means I was reading those books at about the same time, not that they were related directly. Ingrid (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Religion in Saxony

In 1697 Augustus II the Strong convert to Roman Catholicism from Protestantism to be eligible for the Polish throne, but after the 1800s, the House of Wettin (Albertine branch) lost any hope of ruling Poland again when it was partitioned between Russia, Prussia and Ausria and King Frederick Augustus I of Saxony losted the Duchy of Warsaw. So why didn't the family reconvert back to Protestantism since from 1827 to 1918 their subject in Saxony were overwhelmly Protestant and before 1697 the rulers of Saxony had been considered the "champions of the Reformation".--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You are talking a span of 130 years between 1697 and 1827... multiple generations of the family had been raised as Catholics by the later date. My guess is that the family had simply gotten used to being Catholic, and self identified as such. Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, there are several answers. The first is that it was a matter of conscience. Those particular rulers may have been genuinely and earnestly faithfully Roman Catholic. This may be the antithesis of realpolitik: an official sticking to their conscience in the face of political difficulties it creates. Secondly, I'm not sure how much it applied at that late of a date, but officially the position of Europe over religion after the Peace of Augsburg (1555) and confirmed by the Peace of Westphalia a century later, was Cuius regio, eius religio, which means "He who rules, it's his religion" or more directly that the personal religion of the Prince determined the official religion of a sovereign state, and not most importantly, the other way around. I am pretty sure that, officially, this never went away, which meant that it would not be expected that a Prince would change his religion to meet that of those he ruled over, though (and this is where realpolitik comes in) many did so, notably Henri IV of France, "Paris is well worth a Mass"... So Princes did choose to convert to meet the religion of their subjects, but there was no expectation that they had to, and there was a legal principle in place that the expectation was in the reverse: a Prince's subjects were expected to convert to his religion. However, by the later dates that you note, well past the Age of Enlightenment, more modern notions of religious tolerance and plurality were becoming entrenched in Europe, so there may not have been any expectation that it would matter that a Prince was of the same religion as the majority of his subjects. --Jayron32 20:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The monarchs of Belgium, Luxembourg and all of the newly created monarchies of the Balkans either converted to their country's majority religion by their own choice or were made to raised their children in the country's majority faith. I am pretty sure by the 1800s, Saxony was the only European monarchy in which its reigning family didn't follow their country's majority religion.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. So what? Some monarchs changed their religion. The Albertines didn't. Saxony wasn't really a "newly created monarchy"; foreign princes installed in Greece had a reason to convert to Orthodoxy to win the hearts and minds of their new subjects. Wettins had been electors of Saxony for well over a century before Martin Luther even thought about nailing lists to doors. In other words, they had nothing to prove; they had no reason to use religion to establish their legitimacy over a newly created state: they were an old family ruling an old state for a very long time. Legitimacy of their rule wasn't a question. They had no reason to change. --Jayron32 02:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

August 22

Partition of South Africa

How come a two-state partition of South Africa to give the whites and blacks there their own state (similar to what happened in Palestine and British India in 1947-1948) was never proposed or seriously considered by anyone at any time in South African history? From a practical perspective, it would have been much better for the whites and blacks there to have their own state and thus avoid discrimination and having less of a voice than the other side. The whites could have been given the sparely-populated western parts of South Africa and moved there en masse, while the blacks could have been given most of the other parts of South Africa. Futurist110 (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Because probably most of the whites were in positions of power and wealth and if a partition would happen they would get little next to nothing since even today they make up 9% of the population. The only way for them to stay in power and make money was to exploit and discriminate the black majority. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Why wasn't South Africa partitioned in the 1980s or 1990s when the whites there knew that their rule over South Africa would not last, though? Futurist110 (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think it would have worked based on the racist division of labor set up as blacks as workers and whites as management. Workers without management don't do well, and neither does management without workers. Consider what happened in Zimbabwe, when they pretty much kicked the whites out. Not pretty. StuRat (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not because they got rid of white managers, though. They got rid of white farmers and replaced them with black politicians (and other cronies) that didn't know anything about farms or had any interest in actually farming them. Replacing farmers with politicians is going to cause a food shortage regardless of the racial makeup of the country. --Tango (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The person who manages the farm is what I am calling the white manager. I tried to use general terms so it would apply outside of farming, too. StuRat (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The whites in the white-majority state could still have placed some of their companies and means of production (such as factories and farms) in the black-majority state (similar to American companies in China, India, ad other parts of Asia today). Also, blacks would have been able to travel to the white-majority state if they wanted to work there (similar to the Palestinian Arabs working in Israel). Finally, the black-majority state could have worked in educating its population in the meantime and the white-majority state could have imported guest workers if necessary. Futurist110 (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty much the system they had under Apartheid. StuRat (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Eh, No, since blacks weren't allowed to vote or have civil rights anywhere in South Africa under apartheid, while they would be able to hold civil rights and vote in the event of a South African partition.

They could vote in at least some of the Bantustans. StuRat (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't such a partition itself be a form of Apartheid? Or at least segregation? If I was a black South African in the 1980's looking up to Mandela and demanding equal rights in South Africa, I wouldn't want to debase myself and decide to accept a partition to split the country and appear as not equal to white people, just because some racists don't want their government system to fall. --Activism1234 00:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Remember, partition needs to be accepted by both sides. The British Mandate of Palestine never worked becuase only the Jews accepted it, and not the Arabs. The India-Pakistan partition worked because Nehru and Jinnah accepted it, no matter how much Gandhi didn't want it. And that wasn't the best partition either, mass-murder along the way when populations were transferred. I can't imagine blacks in South Africa in the 80's agreeing that they should, for some reason, be cut off and partitioned. --Activism1234 00:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the partitions in India and Palestine didn't work too well (there were 4 large wars in India and 3 in Israel). However, keep in mind that once Israel and India/Pakistan acquired nukes and other countries found out about those nukes, the conflicts in those areas became less heated. Arab countries stopped attacking Israel directly, while India and Pakistan became more careful to avoid wars. Considering that the whites in South Africa had nukes and a strong military (which a white majority-state would probably keep in the event of a partition), the black South African state wouldn't really have been able to do much to destroy the white South African state without bringing heavy damage to itself. And what do you mean by "cut off"? The black-majority state in South Africa would have still been contiguous, and the blacks there would have been able to work for whites (including in the white-majority state) if they would have wanted to. Futurist110 (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In Israel's case, that applies only so long as other Arab countries don't have nukes, which they don't yet, in the future it is possible, albeit unlikely, that Iran may get nukes. In regards to India, the situation is much much worse, because Pakistan, India's fierce rival, has nukes, and they almost had a nuclear war. --Activism1234 01:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Iran isn't Arab, but is still a huge enemy of Israel's. However, I seriously doubt that Iran would start a large-scale war with Israel, as in sending its own troops to fight it and using nukes, since the Iranian regime isn't really interested in getting wiped off the map. As for India and Pakistan, the key word in your sentence is almost. Yes, India and Pakistan came close to a nuclear war in 1998-1999 and 2001-2002, but they backed off since both countries have way too much to lose in a nuclear war. Likewise, the 1999 Kargil War wasn't as bad as the previous three wars (in 1948, 1965, and 1971) and after 1999 there were no large-scale wars between India and Pakistan at all (keep in mind that Pakistan announced that it had nukes in 1998). Futurist110 (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Look into the creation of Lesotho and Swaziland. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the South African government went for partition in a big way, starting in the 1960s, but without giving anything valuable away to non-whites. The policy produced the "homelands" or "bantustans"; "Ten bantustans were established in South Africa, and ten in neighbouring South-West Africa (then under South African administration), for the purpose of concentrating the members of designated ethnic groups, thus making each of those territories ethnically homogeneous as the basis for creating "autonomous" nation states for South Africa's different black ethnic groups" Four of these were granted "full independence", although internationally unrecognised; Transkei is a notable example. Alansplodge (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The Banstustans weren't nearly large enough to create viable economies and to give the black South African percentage that amount of land that they deserved. Also, not all the Bantustans were independent, and thus blacks in many of them still suffered huge discrimination. Futurist110 (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's quite clear that partition was 'seriously considered', though, in that it happened to some extent. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The point of the partition wasn't to achieve a fair and balanced settlement, but for the white minority to keep control of the prosperous bulk of the country, while much of the black majority could be shunted off into marginal areas and left to get on with it, while providing SA with a migrant workforce when required. I suspect that the intention was for all of the homelands to be independent eventually, but never prosperous enough to be a challenge to the RSA. By the way, Transkei was small in comparison to the RSA but more than twice the size of Wales, so all things are relative. Alansplodge (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(question) Is there anywhere in the entire South Africa, besides for Pretoria perhaps, that still has a white majority? I can't easily see how Pretoria becoming an independent enclave (like Lesotho is) could make a viable country. 58.111.229.109 (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Incest Exception for Abortion

With the whole Todd Akin rape controversy, the abortion debate was brought back up into the spotlight right now. I was wondering what the rationale was in some Republican politicians supporting an incest exception for abortion while opposing abortion in most other cases? I mean, some incest is consensual and in some cases children born to closely related parents don't have any or much defects. I know that political pragmatism might be a factor, but is there another rationale for this? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

An obvious consideration is even if it's true the child won't have 'any or much defects' (whatever you mean by that), it remains fairly difficult to know for many until either late in to the pregnancy or even after. A child of incest is also likely have much the stigma of a child of rape to third parties. However I don't think these are significant considerations for people as you describe. The more significant factor is when people say an exception for incest, they actually are really thinking of rape involving a related underage participant and an of age one (or significantly older age at least), e.g. a father raping their underage daughter. Of course in some cases they may also be thinking of cases involving underage participants where rape isn't clear (e.g. siblings of very similar ages). As a way of reference the examples given here [36] mentions a thirteen year old. [37] mentions incest along with rape in the discussion about how the woman is forced to carry a baby against her will etc. [38] mentions several things about incest in reference to a rapist and also in one case young victim. And remembering that abortions aren't forced, even in cases when it is apparently consensual, they may be thinking the woman has come around to the idea she did an extremely disgusting thing and so would have almost as much trouble living with the reminder of it as a rape victim (note I'm not saying and of this actually is, simply this is what the mentality is likely to be like). Or that it probably wasn't really consensual, particularly if it involved significantly different ages and generations (e.g. parent-child). Consider many of the comments in this case [39] [40] [41] (both these links and elsewhere) seemed to express these views. Nil Einne (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The strongly-conservative folks I know argue that the rape-or-incest exception is essentially hypocritical or dubious - because the whole point of being anti-abortion is that the pre-born infant's life is being taken for something that fetus had no control over. The "to save the mother's life" argument usually holds up because the doctor and the family have to make a choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

By defects, I meant congenital disorders. If you're going to argue that we won't know if a fetus will have severe defects until later on, then couldn't the same rationale be used to allow people with inherited medical conditions to get elective abortions? Also, as for the fetus later having a bad life, this argument could also be used to allow poor women to get elective abortions. If someone is thinking of rape, then just say rape. There's no need to allow for a separate incest exception considering that some incest is legally consensual (both parties are above the age of consent and they actually give consent). If someone is underage, then it's generally considered to be statutory rape, and if one is extremely young then it's always considered to be statutory rape. As for this statement--"And remembering that abortions aren't forced", I think that you meant to say that "remembering that incest isn't forced". If you're arguing about the "ickiness" of incest, couldn't a racist woman also theoretically argue that it was disgusting for her to have sex with a man of a different race and that thus she should be allowed to get an abortion? Baseball Bugs, as for the argument that you mentioned, it isn't really convincing, since I don't and shouldn't be able to force someone else to let me have a kidney, blood, or bone marrow from them even if it was necessary to save my life (for an illness/condition that occurred through not fault of my own) if they were not responsible for my illness/condition/dependence on them to survive. Thus, why should a woman be forced to let an offspring conceived in rape use her body for several months? Also, I think that the correct term is prenatal, not pre-born. Futurist110 (talk) 04:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As I made clear, I'm not arguing anything. I'm simply pointing out why some people support such an exception. You asked a question, I provided referenced answers which will not directly making the claim, do support most of the thesis, as I made the assumption you really wanted to understand why people may support such an exception, rather then pretend you were interested to try and start an argument on the RD. In case it's still not clear to you, the fact that when these people say incest, what they mean is rape involving related individuals doesn't change the fact it appears to be what many are doing. Similar to the fact not all of their arguments may be consistent etc. If you disagree with these people, you should take it up with them, and somewhere else besides the RD, since the RD isn't the place for such arguments. You're mistaken about statutory rape. In some jurisdictions, if the people are of very similar age and neither is in a clear position of power over the other, as may be the case for siblings, then there may be no statutory rape, hence why I made that specific distinction. (I already made clear that in other cases, it usually is rape.) And you're quite mistaken. I meant what I said. Abortions aren't forced. So someone who had consensual incest but doesn't regret it or the pregnancy isn't likely to be getting an abortion. So if someone is getting an abortion under such an exception, it generally suggests they don't want the pregnancy, which could be for a number of reasons, but from the POV of people who support such an exception perhaps it will be because they've realised what a disgusting thing they've done and are having trouble living with it. Again let me repeat I'm not saying I subscribe to such views, but if you want to understand why people support or oppose something, you've got to try and see things completely from their POV. P.S. It sounds like you're also missing my point on 'defects'. For starters it's unclear why you would consider Congenital disorder important, when it comes to incest genetic disorder seem to be more relevent here. Either way, there are a large number of things which could be considered genetic disorders (and therefore a type of congenital disorder), such as increase risk of varioys types of cancer, obesity, diabetes etc etc which depending on the precise genetics, may be of higher risk if the parents are highly related. The fact you mentioned disorder rather then abnormality does suggest you are including these but to what level is unclear. Nil Einne (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Opposition to legal abortion quotes some views from groups opposed to abortion on whether incest should be an exception. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Utility Maximisation

Recently I read about Utility Maximization and it seems to be an very important topic in Economics. But are there any stand out examples of firms / companies that have applied this and benefited from this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.11.147 (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article titled Utility that has some background, but more importantly has some sources which you could follow to read more information. From reading the article, it sounds like your answer would be "all of them", in the sense that utility is such a core concept it would be hard to find a firm which took absolutely zero consideration as to the usefulness of their product or service. Whether the firm takes a rigorous mathematical analysis of utility (as the Wikipedia article does), or whether it takes a more qualitative approach towards analyzing their own products, at some level all firms have to have asked, and answered the question "Is the stuff we make useful, and how can be its usefulness be maximized so we can make more money". It does sound like a fundementally important economic concept, such a fundemental concept, however, that it is a core concept and thus unavoidable, and not a magic program that a company could choose to follow or not follow. That's my reading after looking over the articles, as a non-Economist and simple lay person. Perhaps an actual economist could weigh in and give a more thorough answer. --Jayron32 12:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as a student of economics, Jayron's answer makes sense from one perspective, but it's not how I would understand the term "utility maximisation". Rather, one tends to see it used to mean "I, as an agent, am constantly trying to maximise my own utility subject to x constraints" (which is obviously contentious, I'll point out, before Fifelfoo does that for me). Thus, it's not clear what you mean when you use the term: (a) what Jayron said, perhaps (b) "do any firms try to maximise their own utility (aggregate utility of their staff?), rather than maximising their own profits (the standard assumption in mainstream economics)?" (c) "Do any firms try to maximise societal utility (welfare) rather than profits", or something else? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 14:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That's my understanding of "utility maximisation" as well. It is the assumption underlying pretty much all of economics, so is implicitly (and often explicitly) used by anyone using economics. Businesses almost all do that - you need an awareness of supply and demand, for instance, in order to effectively set prices. --Tango (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that firms do perform a mathematically rigorous calculation of the utility that they get from goods and services they buy such as labour. It's called balancing the books. In a business, utility is easily reduced to dollar terms because maximization of utility is the same as maximization of profit. For any given business it can be estimated how much extra profit would be generated if one extra unit of labour, electricity, water, or other factor of production was purchased. In most businesses, at some point further production leads to diminishing returns. If production continues, a point is eventually reached where the marginal cost is equal to the profit generated and further production would lead to a loss.

For individuals it's not as easy to work out utility gained per dollar spent as the goods purchased are necessarily valued subjectively according to the consumer's own preferences. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jarry1250! :). Veblen and some of the other institutionalists try to theorise concepts of utility as separable from exchange value. This can get interesting when you can demonstrate some agents within the firm value gross output maximisation (kilograms) over realised surplus value maximisation (expressible by in one moment of its circulation, but not actually, units of currency). This is, of course, more for other readers here than for you. For the other readers, you may wish to examine the failure of the utilitarian project, or Marx's critique of use-values as a sole expression of capital. Marginalist economics uses "utility" in a terminological way disconnected from ordinary concepts of use; so, maximisation of surplus value is equatable with the marginalist concept of maximisation of utility because there's no contradiction between these within the marginalist world view. If the question comes down to "how much gold can you eat?" then the problem is the failed utilitarianism research programme's problem. It the question is which balance of models of widgets maximise profit, then marginalist concepts utility hold valid. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Athabaskan Indians

Is there a reason why the Athabaskans are from a diverse number of tribes (Apache, Navajo, etc)? Also, why does it appear they retreated northward? Reticuli88 (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a language family, so it's like referring to "Europeans" when you could refer to a specific nationality. And did they "retreat northward"? They must have travelled south like the other native groups. The Apache and Navajo are actually the southern outliers, since most Athabaskan-speakers live in the north. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand. For more specificity, how about the Koyukon Athabascan, which I am a part of..?Reticuli88 (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Does the article Koyukon people help? --Jayron32 13:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Reticuli88 -- some linguists (such Joseph Greenberg) have posited three successive waves of migration from Asia. Earliest was a general "Amerindian" migration, then came a "Na-Dené" migration (which included the spread of Athabaskan languages), then an Eskimo-Aleut migration. (Of course, there may have been even more migration waves, but they could only be discovered by archaeological or genetic analysis methods, not linguistic methods). AnonMoos (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Reticuli88 (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the Athabaskans are the largest group of speakers of the Na-Dene languages, it will be useful to read the article on the Dene-Yeniseian languages about their ultimate origin. The greatest diversity in the Na-Dene languages is in the north and west of their range. This and logic points to a general north to south expansion. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Satish K. Kappor

Respected sir i am already added biography of Dr Satish K Kapoor. Till not comes in our WIKIPEDIA.ORG siite. it will take how many days sir? Please send answer at <redacted> Dr Dama L.B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southraj (talk • contribs) 15:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed you e-mail address, because it is against the rules and may lead to you receiving spam. Regarding your question, if I understand correctly, you are asking about when a Wikipedia page is going to be created about Dr Satish K Kapoor. The answer is whenever an editor (could be you) decides to add it. However, reliable sources are necessary to establish that the subject is notable enough for a wikipedia article. - Lindert (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Southraj has requested an AFC review at User:Southraj/sandbox but has not written an article draft there, so there is nothing to review. Southraj, you may have neglected to save your draft. If you want to try again, please add the text of your submission in your sandbox. If you want someone else to write an article about the person, please follow the instructions at WP:AR; and if you have any further questions, please post them at the help desk, as this is not the correct place. Deor (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In WWII, did the Allies not use encryption? Did Axis powers not bother trying to intercept messages?

I've been reading all about Engima machines and so on but I've yet to encounter any mention of efforts on Germany's part to intercept/decode Allied transmissions, or of Allies even using encryption. Are there some articles to get me started or are there some simple reasons why this wasn't an issue? Thanks. Vranak (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

We have an article on German code breaking in World War II. My understanding, though, is that much of German intelligence was focused on spies rather than codebreaking, and that the British were remarkably successful in turning spies into undetected double agents. — Lomn 16:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We have an article, German code breaking in World War II, which suggests it was poor logistics on the part of the Germans which meant that their codebreaking operation was not as successful as that coordinated from Bletchley Park. My (somewhat uninformed) understanding is that it wasn't a case of the Germans being particularly bad at codebreaking and interception - as our article says, they were able to listen in on conversations between Churchill and Roosevelt - more that Bletchley Park were streets ahead of any comparable effort. Equally important, the Germans were heavily reliant on Enigma, and convinced of its security, and the Allied codebreakers were able to keep their ability to decypher Enigma a secret (even to the extent that they deliberately left cities undefended from bombers when they had gained knowledge of a raid through Enigma transmissions). I believe that the Allies weren't quite so naive - they knew that the Germans could and would decypher their codes and so took further steps to mitigate against the consequences. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The allies actually did a lot of encryption techniques, from high tech (for the day) machine aided encryption like the Combined Cipher Machine to lo-tech methods like Code talkers. A good place to start your research into Allied cryptology methods during World War II is the article World War II cryptography. --Jayron32 16:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You might like the book Between Silk and Cyanide by Leo Marks, about UK codemaking and some of the consequences of German codebreaking in WW2. Yes there were considerable German successes in this area. Note: the story that Churchill let a city be bombed on purpose to preserve the Enigma secret was almost certainly apocryphal. Coventry Blitz#Coventry and Ultra has some info. A fairly thorough book on German WW2 codebreaking came out about 5 years ago but unfortunately I don't remember the title or author :(. It was based on documents that had been declassified only pretty recently (1990's?) so it has some info that wasn't previously known. It changed the picture some, but I don't have the impression it was earth-shattering. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You might also look at M-325, Hebern rotor machine, and most of all SIGABA, which was the U.S. version of enigma. Although I don't know if the allied use was as uniform or as extensive as the Germans was. Shadowjams (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Just as a side comment, it's worth noting that many of what became the really important Allied projects — cryptography, radar, the atomic bomb — were started (at great expense) at a time when Germany looked like it was rolling over Europe without much to stand in its way. The Allies saw themselves, early in the war, as being vastly outmatched in many respects, and spent loads of money on trying to use technology as a way to quickly catch up. By contrast, while the Germans loved spectacular weapons, then spent comparably less time on the sorts of defensive technologies (the atomic bomb was initially conceived in defensive terms, as a deterrent) that ended up being so key to the Allied successes. By the time the Germans realized that they had made a serious tactical error in this respect, it was too late. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The proliferation of German organisations engaged in code breaking was typical of Hitler's leadership style. He and other top Nazis would often give overlapping or even identical tasks to different departments in the belief that the best operation would come out on top in "survival of the fittest" style. The result was more often petty rivalry, poor communication and duplicated effort. Alansplodge (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Another encryption device used by the Allies was the Scrambler which was "invented at Bell Labs in the period just before World War II." Unfortunately, the Germans had a chap who had worked at Bell Labs just before WWII, so it all had to be scrambled a bit more. Alansplodge (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Somewhere in "The Game of the Foxes" Ladislas Farago claims Germany broke into many or most of the allied diplomatic codes. Our article certainly does need some work. Zoonoses (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ted Bundy's interview

I saw an interview with Ted Bundy, his last interview hours before being executed and he blamed pornography for his violent and compulsive thoughts. Is there any article on Wikipedia that explains a possible link between violence and pornography? Nienk (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting on the veracity of the conclusions so reached, or any conclusion you may reach by reading them, you may be able to find some information in the articles Feminist views of pornography or Anti-pornography movement or Misogyny and mass media. Many social activists have claimed a clear connection, Andrea Dworkin comes to mind as the most prominent. If you are interested in exploring that view, Dworkin's books on the subject are probably as canonical as you can get. Again, don't take these recommendations of her works as an endorsement of them, or any of these articles, as being true, but they are usually considered to be among the most cited. --Jayron32 16:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Opposed to Dworkin is Sex-positive feminism... -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Nienk -- Viewing violent media depictions doesn't directly and immediately lead many people to go out and commit violence, or else most cities in the world would look like Grand Theft Auto locales. The more perceptive question is whether it leads to psychological habituation and desensitization effects, and there have been several studies on this (see Desensitization (psychology)#Desensitization). AnonMoos (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Susan Griffin's Pornography and Silence is an excellent read on this subject. -- 21:57, 22 August 2012‎ User:Woz62

I'd say Bundy is putting the cart before the horse in that interview. Sounds like the "Taxi Driver made me do it!" defense (which sometimes mutates into the "Marilyn Manson made them do it!" style of moral panic) - drafted this before I saw your Columbine question below. In either case, the perpetrator is already clinically insane; the media he cites is a vehicle for expressing some of his violent thoughts, not the cause of them. I'm sure media has an impact of some kind on some of the thought processes and imagery (as AnonMoos points out above), but I don't see the determinative causal link that Bundy and Hinckley (or people talking about them) used as an excuse. FWIW, neither did Martha Nussbaum in her critique of some of Dworkin's writings. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

French working hours

The French 35-hour workweek restricts working hours to 35 per week, but does allow overtime (although apparently with an annual limit). Is there a definition of overtime that makes it different to regular working time? Is there anything to stop you just having your employees do two hours a week overtime every week, and essentially have a 37 hour week? I'm struggling to find good explanations of the rules in English (I don't speak French). Thanks. --Tango (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

From what I gather from Google Translate, overtime differs from regular working time in that the employer has to pay a bonus percentage and must (partly) compensate his workers by giving them time off. Thus, the overtime hours are more expensive for the employer and he is better off hiring more workers (which is the intention of implementing the 35-hour workweek. - Lindert (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the intention of the 35-hour week is actually to maintain a healthy work-life balance, or prevent exploitation of workers, or both? I suppose the intention of the legislation might be specified somewhere. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Our article gives reasons - both allowing people to take advantage of modern technological advances to increase their lesiure time and reducing unemployment by sharing work more evenly. --Tango (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Questions about the Columbine shooters

I love to read about crime and conspiracy theories, and on the Columbine massacre I've read a lot. For instance, that they were Neo Nazis, something not true since Dylan Klebold was Jewish. I've also read that they were Freemasons and homosexuals. Is there any truth in that?, in the last two pieces of conspiracy theories? Thank you. Nienk (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any evidence that they were homosexual, in fact there is evidence to the contrary. For example Eric Harris wrote in his journal Quote: "ALL gays, should be killed. mit keine fragen. lesbians are fun to watch if they are hot but still, its not human." In addition to hating homosexuals, the fact that he considered some lesbians 'hot' and 'fun to watch' strongly suggests he was not (exclusively) homosexual. I do not know about freemasonry, but I can't find any reputable sources that support the claim, so I highly doubt it. - Lindert (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Why did he write in German in his diary? And why is the German so bad (my Sprachgefuehl says it should be "ohne Frage")? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that writing such homophobic things is evidence that the writer is not homosexual. See Homophobia#Internalized_homophobia, or read about any number of the closet-homosexual and publicly gay-hating people in recent US history, such as Ted Haggard or Bob Allen. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, according to "Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold," Dylan was raised as Lutheran, not Jewish, though he did have a Jewish grandfather. I haven't seen any evidence that they were neo-Nazis, but nothing in their background precludes that possibility. D Monack (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

He could've been a neo-Nazi. Look at this quote from his journal, for example, "I'm gonna be so fucking loaded in about a month. the big things we need to figure now is the time bombs for the commons and how we will get them in and leave then there to go off, without any fucking Jews finding them." Very irrational. As someone else mentioned above, he also hated homosexuals, which neo-Nazis hate as well. --Activism1234 23:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(EC)I have several comments.. One, the assumption that someone can't be a neo-nazi just because they're Jewish is false. If he was jewish by ancestry, he could very well rebel against it. It might seem ridicolous to go as extreme as neo-nazi, but I recently saw a documentary about the neo-nazi youth movement in Poland, and being Polish myself I found it equally absurd. Secondly, what if they were gay? Ask yourself Why would someone try to claim that? They were obviously disturbed in some fundamental way, could their sexual preferences also have been 'disturbed'? Is a regular gay person 'disturbed'? Can a disturbed person just happen to be gay? Seems to me equally absurd to try to draw a link between the fact they were homicidal maniacs and what their sexual preference was. You might as well make a conspiracy about what their favorite food was, start a rumor that McDonalds was their favorite food and they ate it 7 days a week and I bet someone conspiracy nuts will believe it and think there is a link. Vespine (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What in the world are you saying... Are you replying to me?? Heck, I never even said whether he was gay or not... --Activism1234 00:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Neo-Nazism, see The Believer、loosely based on Dan Burros. While it is extremely unlikely, it is not entirely impossible. Oh, and Activism, I think he was replying directly to the OP. 164.71.1.221 (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah all right, I was so confused! --Activism1234 01:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you're the one that caused his edit conflict he can't possibly have been replying to you. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet another question on Columbine

I added the category American Jews to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold since Klebold was born to Jewish mother. Is that edit right? Nienk (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It depends, I think. There are different ideas about what makes a person Jewish. It would be better to find a reliable source that directly states he is Jewish. Otherwise it might be considered original research to conclude that he is Jewish. - Lindert (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Also important is that it is generally agreed that reliable sources need to indicate that a person self-identifies as a categorization before we categorize them similarly. The standard at Wikipedia is threefold:

1. We need a reliable source
2. Which indicates that a person self-identifies with a category
3. Which is important to their reason for being notable

At best, we have only criteria 1) met. The other two are no where near being met for categorizing Klebold as Jewish in his Wikipedia article. --Jayron32 16:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Full Style of King of Saxony

What were the full style of the Kings of Saxony?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't find anything more extensive than "His Majesty The King of Saxony" as listed at Frederick Augustus I of Saxony while I did find this page, which when fed through Google Translate gives "We, FIRSTNAME, by the Grace of God, King of Saxony, etc. etc." without giving additional titles. Several sources I ran across researching this question indicated that after deposition, the heirs to Saxony began using the title of Margrave of Meissen, which I assume to have been a lesser title they held when Kings of Saxony, indicating that Margrave of Meissen may have been one of the "etc." bits, but I can't find anything more definitive than that. Since I don't speak German like, at all, I'm not finding much more, but if you have access to German language sources, you may find more than I can find in English. --Jayron32 20:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

1806 through 1918: "Wir, (Name), von Gottes Gnaden König von Sachsen etc. etc. etc." . --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

One place to look is Ruvigny Titled Nobility of Europe (1913), which if I remember right has a page for each monarch – including the immediate vassals of the German Empire – listing their full styles. (No, I don't know where to lay hands on it; I've only ever seen it in the San Francisco Public Library, twenty-odd years ago.) —Tamfang (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Here it is in Google Books: [42]. Sadly, it doesn't seem that this one is previewable online. --Jayron32 02:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The entire title, along with a detailed explanation of what each of them was, at least for the year 1873, is on the German Wikipedia (de:Titulatur und Wappen (Deutsche Kaiser nach 1873)). Google also suggests that earlier in the ninteenth century, in 1815, Frederick Augustus I of Saxony was "King of Saxony and Duke of Poland" (Herzog von Warschau), but possibly with other titles (unfortunately searching for that only brings up examples followed by more "et ceteras"). Adam Bishop (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I just noticed you were asking about Saxony specifically, not the emperor, so nevermind... Adam Bishop (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

August 23

Are they any books or movies with a villain with Aspergers_syndrome in it?

Are they any books or movies with a villain with Aspergers_syndrome in it? Interestly enough, people with aspergers sometimes commit crimes in real life. is there non-fiction books and movies about these types of people are criminals? Neptunekh2 (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

According to our article, Aspergers syndrome "becoming standardized as a diagnosis in the early 1990s". I think by that time, authors would have been wary about using a condition in a way that could appear to be adversely stereotyping those affected by it. There may be some examples out there, but I think it's unlikely. Alansplodge (talk) 08:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

TV crime shows like Law & Order, Criminal Minds, etc often feature mentally ill villains. I don't have specific episode references, but maybe a superfan could find you some. Staecker (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

See Autism spectrum disorders in the media and List of fictional characters on the autism spectrum. How is it interesting that people with Asperger syndrome sometimes commit crimes - is there a group of people who never commit crimes? 81.98.43.107 (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The "Social Network" film... -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a villain, but see Did Sherlock Holmes Have Asperger Syndrome?. Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

So technically are Mormons polytheist?

Well I read in an article that the LDS Church once believed (not sure if they still do) that "we can become Gods like our Heavenly Father." Wouldn't that technically be polytheism? And wouldn't that technically be a violation of the First Commandment? 112.208.50.143 (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No more so than the Roman Catholic Church, with its saints and such stuff as that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Surely you can tell the difference between veneration of saints and saying that men can become gods. Staecker (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Baseball Bugs' answer is wrong (the Catholic church distinguishes between "dulia" and "latria" -- see Veneration#Roman_Catholic.2C_Orthodox -- and saints are prayed to as intercessors with God, not as gods themselves). Some (such as many Muslims) would claim that the traditional Christian understanding of the Trinity is effectively equivalent to polytheism, but certain Mormon doctrines are far more explicitly polytheistic than anything in traditional Christianity). AnonMoos (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly the LDS believe in the existence of many gods, however, they don't worship most of them, therefore, one migh call it Henotheism. There is some confusion however on whom the LDS worship. Some say it is only God the Father (link), but it is also said that they worship both the Father and Jesus Christ (link). If so, that can be considered bitheism, because Jesus and the Father are seperate beings and seperate gods in Mormon theology. - Lindert (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do they call it "The Church of Jesus Christ..." if they don't worship Jesus? 109.99.71.97 (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)