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 25

Bribery rejected

Is there a famous example of someone who has been offered a bribe and has rejected the bribery? (I am looking for examples besides the one mentioned at Matthew 4:9, 10.) Apparently there is no such example in Category:Bribery.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Harry Reid#State politics 69.228.170.132 (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I'll start raise the bidding at to $450,000. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Umoh Sunday Etim (red link now) seems to be notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article.

—Wavelength (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Senator Larry Pressler in the late-70s Abscam scandal.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Appearance-enhancing cosmetics as disqualification

Some athletic competitions disqualify contestants for using performance-enhancing drugs. Do any beauty competitions disqualify contestants for using appearance-enhancing cosmetics or body-altering treatments?
—Wavelength (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd expect surgery like breast enlargement is out in many such contests. Cosmetics, on the other hand, are almost always allowed, although I can't discount the possibility of a "no make-up" beauty contest somewhere. (I think this would be a good idea for baby contests, so they don't end up looking like a prostitute/Tammy Faye Baker.) StuRat (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The Donald tried to disqualify Jenna Talackova from the Miss Universe Canada contest for major body work. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you have to be "naturally born" woman to take part on it. Donald Trump seems to have an obsession with this naturally born part. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

So nobody delivered by C-section may compete ? :-) StuRat (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course they can. On the other hand, Tammy Faye's makeup amounted to surgical implantation of a second face, so she'd be out. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Carrie Prejean apparently had breast implants prior to the competition for Miss USA - http://inyourface.ocregister.com/tag/carrie-prejean/page/2/. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 03:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Bad future for Wikipedia

Alright according to what I knew, everything in Wikipedia is stored in some place. What happen if there is a crazy guy in the future that successfully destroy the storage that contains everything Wikipedia ever has? If that happened then are we going to lose all our hard work since 2001? What I mean is like if it happens right now then are we going to lose all 4 million articles and have to start from scratch again? Is there a way that can make everything in Wikipedia invincible to anything and can't never be destroy? Pendragon5 (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be best to ask this at WP:VPT because someone there would have a better answer, but I would assume that Wikipedia, like many firms, uses some sort of remote backup system for its data. I know of few companies who consider their data important that don't store the backup off-site. Think about it, something as simple as a fire in the building with the servers would destroy everything. Let's say you want to make sure you have backup copies of all of your important documents, like your birth certificate, drivers license, insurance cards, etc. You don't make a photocopy of them and then put the photocopy in the same file folder as the original. If you're smart you don't even keep it in the same building: you keep one in a file cabinet at home, and store the other in a safe deposit box at the bank. Firms like Wikimedia do the same thing when they backup their data: they keep the backup offsite, for the exact reason you note. --Jayron32 05:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay let say it this way. I'm sure if someone, that wants to destroy everything in Wikipedia, already knows about this. So that crazy guy will try to destroy "ALL" the storage memory of Wikipedia including the backup. So in that case, is that mean that we are screw? So the hard work of millions editors around the world are wasted at one point in the future? One more question: So there is not really something that invincible to destruction? I hope that something like that will exist so we can protect this great work of mankind!Pendragon5 (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

People that batshit insane usually lack the means to enact their insanity. Supervillains don't really exist like they do in the comic books. If some guy blew up the Wikimedia offices, and then started blowing up all of the buildings that housed the backup servers, and THEN blew up all the buildings that housed all of the servers that housed all of the non-Wikimedia forks and mirrors of Wikipedia, well, at that level we're getting just silly. It isn't going to happen. --Jayron32 14:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well it has happened once before actually... Adolf Hitler would be a good example. I would categorize Hitler into "extremely insane person" but he is not stupid. Who can say Hitler is dump? He is crazy yea but not stupid at all. Let me remind you of something, some people are really smart but what they want to do "make" others people think they are insane. Perhaps they are not. What kind of reason is there for someone want to blow up everything about Wikipedia? I don't know but there isn't any reason or maybe just some dump reasons like Hitler had to kill the Jews. And as technology continues grow, you can use it either for good thing or can also use it for the bad thing... Imagine 100 years from now... What kind of destruction our technology enable us to do. If a smart bad guy trying to do insane thing get the hold of something destructive then destroy everything Wikipedia has is just a piece of cake or they can even destroy the entire Earth.Pendragon5 (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt that people are that batshit insane as to want to destroy Wikipedia as you describe. How would the get the means to do so? Hitler is a non-sequiter: He wasn't a weirdo with a vendetta against a website. How would a U.S. resident manage to destroy so many hundreds of buildings without getting stopped at some point. The scale of the endeavor to completely erase all of Wikipedia, and the impossibility of carrying out such a plan is what is silly. --Jayron32 01:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, it doesn't need to be a US resident. Anyone in this world could be that nutter who wants to destroy Wikipedia. It is "not" impossible to destroy all the storage of Wikipedia. I think if what Hitler did was possible then destroying Wikipedia is nothing. What Hitler did is just simply on a WAY BIGGER scale than destroying that many buildings. How would they get the means to do so? Don't ask me. They can get it by whatever they want and capable of. It is hard yep but not impossible. So I can make a conclusion that Wikipedia is not completely safe yet. Maybe it is 99% safe but... As long as it is not 100% safe then we can't be so certain that something bad won't happen. Better be over careful than be careless.Pendragon5 (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I do a bit of IT work for a owner operated business. Even that one person operation has two backups. One onsite and one off. Wikimedia, I'm sure, has something similar. Dismas|^(talk) 05:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks.—Wavelength (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

See User:Emijrp/Wikipedia_Archive#Offline_versions_of_Wikipedia. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

And even more relevant, Wikipedia:Terminal Event Management Policy. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The contents of Wikipedia are stored in a huge MySQL database, and secured in a number of ways. First, the database is replicated in a number of servers; second, the entire contents are backed up regularly and the backups are stored on multiple computers in multiple countries. To destroy all of that would take enormous skill and enormous effort. Looie496 (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how much effort or skill it would take but what matter is is it possible to do it or not? It sounds like it is a possible thing to me. So I think we can't be too sure that Wikipedia is safe because one day in a future, some smart badass crazy people may successfully destroy it. The only to prevent this 100% is to create something that, store everything Wikipedia, can't never be destroy like matter.Pendragon5 (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a recent SQL backup. It's not everything, but it's a good start. The crazy guy has to get it from me (and I assume I'm not the only one with some database dumps) first. Shadowjams (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but you don't have a full dump of all the images en.wikipedia relies on (its entire collection, and a lot of commons). That has grown to such titanic size, and at such a rate, that distributing a complete copy online is mostly impractical. I'd hope the Foundation would spend some money making (perhaps a few hundred) copies and distributing them to libraries and universities around the world, but I'm not aware that they or anyone has done that. If this were the world after Apophis, someone may find your or another wikidb replica. So they'd know Ross married Rachel and that Homer's middle name is Jay, but they wouldn't know what a daffodil looked like. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have 0 affiliation with the foundation, but my understanding is that the entire text history of wikipedia is accessible from the SQL dumps, notwithstanding revedel, etc... [those who know what that is don't wonder about this sort of question]... the image database hasn't been easily dumpable for a very long time, however many of those images are accessible elsewhere, although it might a very useful project to figure out which of those are not and to back those up. The internet Archive has been very open to things like this lately, so if there's a real concern about wikimedia content (which is different from wikipedia, but I'm pretty sure finlay knows that) perhaps they could pick up some slack. In any case, this scenario is one of the last concerns. If this actually happens, getting the internet infrastructure back up matters more... especially for things like phones, etc.... us learning about encyclopedia topics will be a conclusion that can be dealt with later. Also google has a huge database of all of this...that might be more of a target of your concern than this website. Shadowjams (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is just a website. If it disappeared tomorrow, very few would care. And if some extraordinarily obsessive vandal plotted such a crime, he would be extremely unlikely to have what it takes to carry it out. I'd be more concerned about it being hit by a natural disaster, like a hurricane or a Republican presidency. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The contents of the articles are released once a month or so in database dumps at m:database dumps. A complete dump of English Wikipedia in compressed form is around 30-40GB (maybe a little more by now), which is a cumbersome but still practical amount to download over a home broadband connection to a hard drive. I have a bunch of those dumps and lots of other people have them too, and you can download your own if you have the bandwidth and disk space (around 10h of downloading with a 10Mbit cable modem). The image collection at commons.wikimedia.org is a worse point of vulnerability since it's around 15TB, which is somewhat more than can be downloaded easily. It was really true for a while that it only existed in one physical location, though there is at least one remote copy now. There has been some talk of building off-wikimedia mirrors though progress that I know of has been slow. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Destruction will come from within; the political battles for control over what is now effectively an owned resource, of great financial value to whoever wins, have already progressed to an advanced stage. Wikipedia will very likely follow the same trajectory as Encyclopedia Dramatica, including the extent of what is preserved and what is lost, and the degree of reduction of traffic, on a mirror site (akin to encyclopediadramatica.se) after its collapse. Wnt (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Nah Wikipedia is not comparable to Encyclopedia Dramatica? It is like compare a mouse to an elephant. I don't think Wikipedia would ever get shut down from within. Remember the SOPA and PIPA are such a big failure. Anything with a bad start will end up like nothing.Pendragon5 (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

What source says. Zeus returned Asclepius and the Cyclopes from Hades.

I read this on the cyclops page. I like that information. I just want to make sure it's true. Because no other website says this. So how is it true. I need the source the editer had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.228.62 (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This page, which covers the mythology concerning Asclepius in exhaustive detail, attributes to a writer it calls Pseudo-Hyginus the story that Zeus removed Asclepius from Hades and placed him in the heavens as part of the constellation Ophiuchus. Looie496 (talk) 07:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What source says. Zeus returned the Cyclopes from Hades.

Sorry I was asking about the Cyclopes. What source says Zeus returned the Cyclopes From Hades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.228.62 (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you read Cyclops? It describes the different versions of the myth as depicted by various ancient writers. --Tango (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up question

ed note: I moved this from a section below because it is good to keep related topics under the same thread--Jayron32 14:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Tango thank you for your answear. I'll describe my question 100% here. My question is. What I am wanting to know. Is what ancient writer. Says Zeus returned the Cyclopes from Hades. I know the Cyclops says that. What I'm wanting to know is where the wikipeidia Editor. Found that information. I'm trying to make sure it's true. Wiki Doc Says "Zeus sadden at the loss of the original three cyclops decided to return them from Hades" I'm asking was this the writer thought. Or was it fact. I ask everybody this question and they cant give me a answear. I've sent E-mail To Greek Mythology teachers and website creator's. They all give me different Answear's. My question where did the source come from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.228.62 (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The Cyclops article says that this story from Hesiod, in his Theogony. I can't speak as to whether this attribution is correct or not. --ColinFine (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Visual art breaking the cyber "fourth wall"

Is there a term to describe a visual artist's referential use of cyber-phenomena within an artwork? I'm thinking this would be some equivalent of the theatrical "breaking the fourth wall" or a metafilm technique. Example (presently viral among huji undergrads): a single-panel cartoon, lower half blank, upper half showing (a) the head to waistline of a cartoon character addressing the reader and (b) truncated text: "Is the Internet in the dorms really slow or is it jus" -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

In their book, Hipgnosis called it "frame breaks" (minus the cyber part, of course)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That example does relate to the dimension of the subject/viewer connection, but the cyber part is essential to what I'm trying to grasp: that the medium itself is referenced (or manipulated) in the image and its underlying message. For another example, from the earlier days of television - The Outer Limits that ended with the announcer saying, "We now return the control of your television set to you..." (or words to that effect). Possibly an upgraded electronic aspect of Magritte's Treachery of Images ("This is not a pipe", etc.) -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

How is 1960s television "cyber"...? -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

True, not cyber but a telecommunications medium - not the conventionally spatial "fourth wall" of a frontal visual or audiovisual medium like painting or theatre. -- OP Deborahjay (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"Cyber" used to be an abbreviation of cybernetic, while now it's mainly an abbreviation of cyberspace. Neither meaning correlates very well with what you seem to be trying to say... AnonMoos (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Las Meninas (1656).

An early example of this "fourth wall" breaking (clearly, minus cyber reference) would be Velazquez´ Las Meninas, where the painter has not only included himself (and the rear view of the canvas) in the picture, but also shows a (possible) mirror image of the Spanish royal couple, who would be standing "on the other side" of the painting, observing its progress. There is also the Arnolfini Portrait, which shows a mirror of the scene (possibly including the painter) and the tag of an early grafitto hooligan, Kilroy, oops Jan van Eyck. Our article does not give a painterly / graphic term for this technique.

Both examples, as stated, have no cyber connection, they do, however, recursively reference the painterly procedure. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the PBS(?) show I was watching, Velazquez was possibly painting the royal couple. He certainly wasn't doing a portrait of the infanta from the back. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

PBS or not, this is one of the most-discussed paintings in art, so don't take any one source on it as canonical. It's either him painting the couple, or him painting the infanta from a large mirror. As our article puts it, "No single theory has found universal agreement." --Mr.98 (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

OR: Actually, this is quite simple. Diego Velazquez had a - somewhat obscure - twin brother, Jimenez Velazquez.

The painting Las Meninas depicts the infanta and, on the left, the above mentioned twin brother Jimenez Velazquez painting the royal couple, who are reflected in a mirror in the rear of the painting. The painting Philipp IV and his wife depicts the royal couple and, on the left, the above mentioned twin brother Diego Velazquez painting the infanta, who is reflected in a mirror in the rear of the painting. This latter painting - now lost - was produced simultaneously to the above Las Meninas. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Escaping criticism.

In terms of painting and the fourth wall, “Escaping Criticism,” by Pere Borrell del Caso is perhaps a more obvious example... - Nunh-huh 01:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

China vs United States economy

Hi. When will China's economy overtake the United Steates and become the largest economy in the world? --41.196.252.32 (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to say with any certainty, but it will probably be in a few years. Just Google "Chinese economy overtake US" and you'll find plenty of predictions. For example, the IMF predicted last year that it would be 2016. I think the Chinese economy has slowed a little since then, so it may take a little longer. --Tango (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

BBC says 2020, others 2030 and others even say it has already overtaken the US. The most honest answer is economist always make predictions that are no better than guessing (not educated guess, but just wild guesses). No one know for sure whether it will happen, and if yes, then when. Maybe they are hit so hard by their own bubble that nobody talks about it again. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

They're a lot more than wild guesses. You can extrapolate from current and past trends relatively easily in order to narrow it down to a few years. Getting more precise than that requires some educated guesses about how trends will change. The large differences between predictions you mention are mostly because they are measuring slightly different things. For example, people that say China has already overtaken the US are probably including the unofficial economy (things that don't end up on tax returns - neighbours exchanging favours, for instance, when can be a very important component of rural economies and China is significantly more rural than the US). Once you agree on what it is you are predicting (for example, GDP as measured and published by the IMF) then most economists will make predictions within a reasonably narrow range since it isn't too far in the future. --Tango (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe they would make better predictions that the average Joe and I don't believe a time range of 10-20 years is short term. Lots of things (wars, bubbles exploding, internal conflicts, new technologies) can happen, consequentially the most honest answer is that we don't know what will happen in the next years. This is a position that's rare among economists, admitting the unpredictability of events is apparently not acceptable within their profession. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm also not sure the event is all that meaningful, given that China has four times the population of the U.S., so on the day that China overtakes the U.S. in GDP, it will still be 1/4th as rich on a per capita basis. In other words, China's economy would have to grow over four times what it is now in order to overtake the U.S. in terms of average living conditions and development and all that. The U.S. is still, on average, a better place to live. Much of China still lives in abject poverty, especially areas outside the big cities. --Jayron32 16:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Exceeding the US in GDP would mean that China has more revenue to spend in the military, research, and investment. Diplomatic and trade relationships with China would become more important for every country in the world, and China's political power would greatly increase. GDP might not be a good indicator of the quality of life, but it's a very good indicator of a country's power in the world. --99.227.95.108 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm skeptical their GDP would have to go to four times U.S. for arguably comparable living conditions. I think a lot of the U.S. GDP is held in the sort of fiscal sand castles that innovations in the derivatives markets and such tend to create. I have no idea, but I'd bet a larger portion of Chinese GDP in tangible wealth. Of course, direct comparisons of wealth are problematic anyway. The U.S. is said to be wealthier than Britain, but Britons don't have to worry about whether they'll be able to afford medical care when they get sick. A country's rights for its individual people, political and economic, seem to me to be a truer sort of wealth, and one which can be created, or lost, for no money at all. Wnt (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Slate had this chart from Newsweek that predicted it would happen in 2017: [1]. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we're allowed to discuss future events in here but I think I saw Goldman Sachs economic projections that said that it would occur in or around 2027, so in about 15 years. Futurist110 (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no universally-agreed way of measuring the size of an economy, so any answer to this question (even after the event) will be a rough approximation that might be out by many years. The Gross domestic product ("the market value of all officially recognized final goods and services produced within a country in a given period") is often used as an indication, but that article discusses many of the problems with this approach, including the problem of how to convert between GDP values in different currencies. One critical quote from the article: "The GDP framework cannot tell us whether final goods and services that were produced during a particular period of time are a reflection of real wealth expansion, or a reflection of capital consumption. For instance, if a government embarks on the building of a pyramid, which adds absolutely nothing to the well-being of individuals, the GDP framework will regard this as economic growth. In reality, however, the building of the pyramid will divert real funding from wealth-generating activities, thereby stifling the production of wealth." 81.98.43.107 (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think extrapolating current trends is really accurate here. China could stumble in a number of ways:

1) They seem to be getting steadily more aggressive with fishing rights and territorial claims with their maritime neighbors. This can cause blowback, with reduced trade between them.

2) If they invade Taiwan, this would likely result in a global boycott on Chinese goods.

3) The new wealth in China is extremely unequally distributed, leading to tensions. This may cause unrest (strikes, riots, etc.), damaging the economy.

4) They need to clean up the environment from years of neglect, and this costs a lot.

5) They seem to prefer to support military dictatorships, like in Syria and Sudan. If those governments fall or lose territory, this reduces China's power and trade.

6) The One Child Policy will cause a "demographic bomb", where they will have few workers to support many retirees. StuRat (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Goldman Sachs isn't extrapolating the current Chinese economic growth rate to 2050. Rather, it projects that the Chinese economic growth rate will decline over the next 40 years as China becomes wealthier and gets less favorable demographics. And for the record, Goldman Sachs has actually underestimated China's, Brazil's, and Russia's economic growth over the last 9 years when it made its original BRIC projections in 2003. And for the record, I'm talking about nominal GDP, not PPP. Futurist110 (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, China tends to avoid taking risks when it comes to its economy. Futurist110 (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Here’s what you need to know to make a reasonable forecast for when the Chinese economy will surpass in size that of the US (assuming it happens): (1) The size of each economy today (this is highly problematic in the case of China, as noted in the reference to the underground economy above). (2) Each economy’s rate of nominal growth, also problematic as China’s figures are highly suspect, and some question the basis for US inflation. (3) Whether to include Taiwan, Hong Kong and / or Macau as part of China; and finally, (4) The exchange rate.

For those who recognize that PPP is actually intended to measure only consumer goods, that means making an assumption on the Rmb:US$ exchange rate. Make your assumptions, do the math and pick any year from 2012 on. Others may wish to blindly copy the CIA or IMF, where the unstated assumption is that a PPP exchange rate would also be valid for foreign trade, capital investment or services consumption.

Government revenue is not necessarily a factor, as different economies may take different amounts out of their economies, and allocate it to different types of spending. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Previous death sentences and re-introduction of the death penalty in the US in 1976

When the death penalty was abolished and re-introduced in 1976 in the US, what happened to previous death sentences? Did they tell inmates, hey Joe, guess what? We actually are gonna execute you. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

My understanding, which might be wrong, is that Furman v. Georgia said, more or less, that all state death penalty statutes are currently unconstitutional. This meant that the states in question had to commute all of these convictions under those statutes into life without parole. Many of the states then re-introduced new death penalty statutes, based on the Furman decision, that applied to anyone convicted after them, which were upheld in Gregg v. Georgia. If this understanding is correct, then nobody who had been on death row prior to Furman would have been on death row again — you can't uncommute a sentence. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware of any action to try to reinstate the penalties. Had there been it would likely have been a 9-0 decision to overturn reinstatement based on the Fifth Amendment prohibition of double jeopardy.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That's about being tried twice for the same crime, not about sentencing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No. Had they meant tried twice they would have said that, not twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offense. Once put in jeopardy never twice. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This reminds me of something I once heard, "The constitution doesn't need to be interpreted. It's not written in ancient Egyptian heiroglyphs." 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

However my understanding supported by Ex post facto law#United States, is that ex post facto laws (laws that 'retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law') are unconstitutional in the US, and from the description given above, an ex post facto law would be needed here. From the article, it sounds like some additional legal consequences (like registration of sex offenders) which are not punishments are allowed, but applying a death penalty after the fact would surely be. Nil Einne (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I do believe there are good reasons to believe retroactive commutation of a sentence is not possible, as Mr.98 points out above, I do not see how this Ex post facto clause would work. I was talking about people who committed murder and were sentences to death according to the law at the time of the act, before the death penalty was put on ice. You wouldn't be applying a new law after the act, just the law at the time of the fact, provided this period without death penalty was just a kind of moratorium, and not an irrevocable commutation to life imprisonment to all. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason you need an ex post facto law is because the convicts were sentanced under a law that was invalidated by Furman v. Georgia, so the death penalty could only be reinstated by a new law (one compliant with Furman v. Georgia) and that new law cannot apply to actions that preceeded it's enactment. So the old law cannot be applied because it's invalidated, and the new law can't extend back to that date, so the convict gets to keep his sentance commuted. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't. As with double jeopardy (I'll take Amendments for 100, Alex!), ex post facto or "after the fact" has to do with crimes being committed. Like if someone discovers that you can get high from inhaling the aroma of jalepeños, they might declare them a controlled substance and criminalize their use. But the guy who reported the findings is off the hook, unless he continues to abuse jalepeños after the ban goes into effect. As a practical matter, once a sentence is commuted, I don't think it's going to be reinstated. There might even be laws against it. But that would be another story, barring some comments here from a good lawyer. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Note clarifications from an actual lawyer, the Hon. Wehwalt. Ex post facto applies to this situation after all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

But if Mr.98 is correct then you are applying a new law. The death penalty part of original law was invalid, therefore the only way you could give the death penalty was with a new law. The fact that the outcome of the law may be the same doesn't change the fact you are trying to apply a new law after the crime was committed, which logically would violate the restriction on ex post facto laws. You could of course still apply the old law but if Mr.98 is correct and the death penalty part of that law was unconstitutional then you could not apply that part of the law without violating the constitution (or changing it). You can't have a 'moratorium' on something that isn't valid.

P.S. If you're still confused, perhaps ignore the death penalty part completely. Imagine a law (law A) is enacted which is later ruled unconstitutional for being to broad and violating the first amendment. A new law (law B) is passed which the Supreme Court finds is okay. Someone who violated original law A after it was passed but before law B was passed could not logically be held accountable for violating law B for those actions, even if their actions also unsurprisingly violated law A and law A imposed the same punishment. Law A is an invalid law, and law B can't be applied ex post facto as with all laws in the US.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The pre-Furman death sentences were not revived by Gregg v. Georgia (1976). That is why you had so few death sentences administered in the late 1970s (Gary Gilmore and a couple of others). Ex post facto can be more than the crime itself, a state can't up the maximum penalty between offense and sentence. Also, once the statute of limitations has run, that's it, the state can't revive it (this differs from civil cases) I've never done a death penalty case (I am not "death certified", in the phrase) but you use the statute as in effect on the date of the supposed offense.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So your point is that because all existing death penalty clauses of capital crime cases were invalidated by the Supreme Court, none of those case could be resentenced later, because it would have had to been based on a new, hence ex post facto law? μηδείς (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't recall what the mechanism was, but those on death row at the time of Furman had their sentences redone. They could not be executed unless they killed again and were tried under a statute that would pass muster. Needless to say, legislatures moved quickly to pass statutes that satisfied Furman and those cases moved through the courts and resulted in Gregg.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. My memory (which seems to be mostly correct, though not perhaps all of the legal reasoning) came from reading something about Charles Manson and his sentencing (he was sentenced to death then commuted post-Furman; Vincent Bugliosi wasn't happy about it, etc.) years ago. (I am not a lawyer, but my father is, and he is "death certified", so I've picked up a few other notions over the years as well talking with him.) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Minor point: Manson's sentence had already been effectively struck down before Furman was decided; several months earlier the California Supreme Court had already taken care of this in California v. Anderson. I say "effectively" because I don't know whether he was still formally under sentence of death at that time. --Trovatore (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I seem to recall that when Ginny Foat was charged post-Furman, in Louisiana, for a pre-Furman murder, the authorities asserted that the death penalty was under consideration (presumably under the law as it existed in 1965). Of course they can assert anything they like, and for all I know it was just a tactical measure to prevent bail from being granted or some such.

Anyway, I guess my point is that the situation is a little more complicated than "Furman struck down all existing death penalty laws, and those laws were thenceforward invalid". Maybe not a lot more complicated, but a little more. For example, the state could perhaps have tried her under their 1965 law and then attempted to argue that that law (which perhaps had been changed by 1972?) was not one of the ones struck down by Furman. Whatever the case, they didn't do that, and she was acquitted in any case. --Trovatore (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Largest bunker by population ?

What/ where is the largest bunker in the world that can had the largest number of people?
Also what limits (if any) of the number of people or how big one builds the bunker etc are there?
For example in various films, they build bunkers that can hold millions of people for decades or more, could one actualy build a bunker that big?80.254.146.140 (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what you define as a "bunker", but the entire London Underground was used as an improvised bunker during The Blitz. See History of the London Underground#World War II. I'm not sure what the total number of people there were sheltered in the Underground at any one time during The Blitz, but it must have been impressively large at times. No idea how large it is compared to other bunkers, but the secret bunker built under The Greenbrier resort in West Virginia (aka Project Greek Island) was designed to house all of Congress and their families, which with support staff would mean that at least 1000 people if not more. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, however, if other purpose-built bunkers were larger. --Jayron32 14:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Our article on air-raid shelter says on the London tube: An estimated 170,000 people sheltered in the tunnels and stations during World War II. It also mentions that Finland has over 40,000 air-raid shelters which can house 3.8 million people (71% of the population). Helsinki, built on bedrock, certainly has a large "underground city" which, partly, is used commercially. Some of the deep sections of the Moscow Metro and the Prague Metro (one of the escalators is reportedly 100 m long and the longest in Europe) were planned to be used as fall-out shelters during the Cold War. For Russia, see Metro-2. China is also reported to have build vast underground complexes. Beijing´s Underground City reportedly covers an area of 85km^2. Of course, it may be speculated that numerous underground shopping malls in a variety of cities have been planned as fall-out shelters.

If you are also interested in "non-human" bunkers, our article on the Norwegian submarine base Dora 1 states that it was designed to house 16 submarines and 200,000 soldiers. The size is about 150m * 100 m. The usable area would have been less as the walls are 3m thick. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the 200,000 claim from the Dora 1 article, as it's unsourced and wildly unrealistic. The entire German force in Norway at the time was only around 300,000 and I suspect that's where the misunderstanding has come from. The aim was to protect the U-boats, and the people building the base had enough trouble just trying to do that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Underground city has lots of potential answers. Also see cave#Records and superlatives for some of the largest natural cave systems, some of which could be usable as bunkers. Subterranea (geography) is a catch-all article. I'm not sure you will get a solid answer though - a lot of natural caves haven't been fully explored, while a lot of underground buildings are in a state of disrepair and many are not open to the public. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Not what the op asked, but Albania has the most bunkers for its population: Bunkers in Albania.Smallman12q (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Canada and Islamic fundamentalism, terrorism

Hi, something that's always caught my attention is that terrorists, Islamic terrorists have never aimed their violence at Canada, despite Canada's involvement in the War in Afghanistan and support of the War on Terror. My question is, has there been any foiled terrorist plot against Canada? or some attempt by terrorists to hit Canada? Thank you. Nienk (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There's at least the 2006 Ontario terrorism plot, there may be others. See Terrorism in Canada, though that article is about terrorism in general, not only Islamic terrorism. - Lindert (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sure, there was the 2006 Ontario terrorism plot. There is also Omar Khadr, although he was caught in Afghanistan. And not Islamic or aimed directly at Canada, but Air India Flight 182 originated in Canada. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Some more: link 1, link 2. According to prime minister Stephen Harper, Islamic terrorism is the biggest threat to Canada (I'm not saying I agree with that, I'm just reporting it.) - Lindert (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If Islamic terrorism is the biggest threat to Canada, then Canada's a pretty safe place. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't underestimate Islamic terrorism nor Harper's words since Canada has been pretty active in the War on Terror and War in Afghanistan. Nienk (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It is hardly Canada's fault that Muslim terrorist plots are generally highly incompetent. As someone said, they only have to succeed once, we have to prevent them every time. μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"We have to prevent them every time"? I've usually seen such an attitude in the context of nuclear missiles or something like that — where one failure is total failure — but I haven't seen it for terrorism. Whomever voiced that particular opinion has an exaggerated fear of terrorism. There are many things to be afraid of in the world; I'm not sure terrorism qua terrorism should be at the top of the list, at least in the Western world, where it is still an exceedingly rare way to die. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This sounds very much like an inversion (which may well have itself been an inversion of an original) of part of, I think, a statement issued by some version of the IRA as a threat to the Prime Minister of the UK of the time (probably Mrs Thatcher) after a failed assassination bombing, along the lines of "This time you were lucky: you have to be lucky every time, we only have to be lucky once." Doubtless another editor can pin down the quote(s) more exactly. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

A terrorist with bomb materials was apprehended while crossing into the US from Canada near Seattle. There was also arson in a Jewish library in Montreal. StuRat (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot also seems to have been partially aimed at Canada. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

August 26

How many men are in Canada's jails for child support?

HOW MANY MEN ARE IN CANADA'S JAILS FOR CHILD SUPPORT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.174.34 (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Not nearly as many as are in for failure to pay child support. StuRat (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably very few. It seems courts will negotiate, garnish bank accounts and seize personal property before resorting to jail time for child support defaulters. [2] [3]. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

According to these stats, there are about 35,000 or fewer adults in jail in Canada. According to these stats, between 2 and 9 per cent of court cases are for "Fail to Comply with Order". Only a fraction of these again would be about child support, so you're looking at fewer than 3,000 people - I expect the real answer is far, far lower. I could not find stats on exactly what you are looking for, but keep checking back as someone else may well turn them up soon. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That table doesn't seem to separate "failure to comply with a court order" and "failure to comply with a probation order", which are different sections of the Criminal Code. If they're lumped in together that may skew the numbers - breach of probation is commonly used to get gang members off the streets, so it's a fairly common charge. --NellieBly (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why don't Muslims know what day Eid-ul-Fitr is?

Pretty simple question, but I have yet to get a satisfactory answer to it. People say it depends on the moon, but we already know what the moon will do tomorrow, the day after that, and hundreds of years from now. We have known exactly what the moon will do tomorrow for hundreds of years. We can predict eclipses, new moons, full moons... the whole shabang. So why the confusion? Wrad (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Our article on Eid-ul-Fitr says, "Although the date of Eid ul-Fitr is always the same in the Islamic calendar, the date in the Gregorian calendar falls approximately 11 days earlier each successive year, since the Islamic calendar is lunar and the Gregorian calendar is solar. Hence if the Eid falls in the first ten days of a Gregorian calendar year, there will be a second Eid in the last week of the same Gregorian calendar year. The Gregorian date may vary between countries depending on the local sightability of the new moon. Some expatriate Muslim communities follow the dates as determined for their home country, while others follow the local dates of their country of residence. In the Islamic calendar, a new day, and therefore also Eid ul-Fitr, begins at sunset." Looie496 (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They don't? Eid-ul-Fitr falls on the first day of Shawwal every year. I'm pretty sure the Islamic calendar is well established and not mysterious at all. Where did you hear that it was mysterious? I've never heard this. (post EC comment after Looie's answer). As Looie points out, the exact timing of when Eid-ul-Fitr is celebrated will vary from place to place locally, but they all know when it is, at least for themselves in their locality. --Jayron32 05:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That's just it. They don't know when it is. I was in Morocco this summer, and everyone said that Eid would be on one of two days, "depending on the moon," but that doesn't make any sense, given that we can predict with breathtaking accuracy exactly how the moon will appear in the sky on any given day or night years into the future. Why the uncertainty? Wrad (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I see the source of the confusion. The article Islamic calendar explains it well. To quote: "A majority of theologians oppose the use of calculations (beyond the constraint that each month must be not less than 29 nor more than 30 days) on the grounds that the latter would not conform with Muhammad's recommendation to observe the new moon of Ramadan and Shawal in order to determine the beginning of these months" There's cites there too. It seems that Muhammad proclaimed that direct observation of the new moon was required, and that many Muslims take this to be a prohibition on actyally calculating when that should be. I stand corrected. Of course, it would be trivial for anyone to "look up" when any given new moon would be, but many faithful muslims would see this as a sort of blasphemy, and instead wait each night to observe it directly. That seems to be what's going on here. --Jayron32 05:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

According to [4] scholars differ as to what "seeing" the new moon means. Wrad (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's just a tradition really, not that they can't otherwise figure it out. Sort of like a serious version of Groundhog Day. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrad -- there's a schematic (i.e. fixed in advance) version of the Islamic calendar which is used for some limited purposes, but for determining the date of religious observances in any one region, the criterion for the start of the month (according to traditional Islamic legal interpretation) is the date when the thin crescent moon is first observed in the west around sunset in that region. There are algorithms to predict when the new crescent moon will likely be visible or not visible on a particular day in a given area, but any such algorithm will always have borderline cases, and few Muslim religious scholars would feel confident in replacing actual eyewitness testimony with a mathematical algorithm. Of course, there's a problematic trend in some areas of crescent sightings being reported and accepted on days when on astronomical grounds it seems extremely unlikely that a crescent would be visible.

The Islamic calendar could be considered to have problems in accuracy (i.e. since the year is always 12 lunar months, the Islamic calendar rotates rapidly through the seasons, so that an observance which is in summer one year will be in winter 17 years later), and with indeterminacy (i.e. it is not known in advance exactly when each month will begin, and months can begin on different dates in different parts of the world). However, one advantage of the Islamic calendar is that there are no calendar schisms -- all you have to do to maintain the Islamic calendar is observe young crescent moons at sunset each month and keep track of where the current month is in a cycle of 12. So Muslims everywhere should never disagree by more than one day as to what the current date is. By contrast, in Christianity the Coptic, Ethiopian, and Armenian churches use quite different calendars from the Gregorian calendar, the Old Calendarists still use the Julian calendar, most eastern Orthodox now theoretically use the "Revised Julian" calendar (though the revised Julian calendar will not differ from the Gregorian calendar until 2800 A.D.), and western Christians vs. Orthodox use different methods for determining Easter. Historically, the Jews of Hellenistic and Roman times had competing calendars advocated by different sub-groups (though many of the details of such calendar schisms have been lost -- see Enoch calendar etc.), the calendar used by the Parsees of Iran was a month off from the calendar used by the Parsees of India, etc... -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

As others have said: it's not just the shape of the moon (to formulate it rather clumsily) it is also when it is observed by Muslims. This, of course, begs the question, what if it happens to be cloudy on the day that the new moon should be visible? (Given that a month shouldn't be longer than 30 days, I suppose it means that they just wait till the next day.) V85 (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The Jewish lunar calendar, and the lunar calculations involved in determining the date of Easter among Christians, are based on calculating the absolute new moon (astronomical conjunction) and/or full moon (astronomical opposition), events which have an objective astronomical definition, and whose timing does not change depending where on the earth you're located. The beginning of the Islamic month is sometimes called "new moon", but this is not meant to be astronomical conjunction, but rather first crescent visibility, which varies between different geographical areas, and usually occurs at least 18 hours (often more) after astronomical conjunction... AnonMoos (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Jewish Immigration to the Americas Over Western Europe

How much there was much greater Jewish immigration to North & South America (from Eastern Europe) in the 19th and early 20th century than there was to Western Europe? Western Europe was far closer, and it had roughly the same standard of living as the United States and Canada. You could point out nationalism, but nationalism wasn't too widespread in all Western European countries and the U.S. had its own fair share of ethnic (and racial) prejudice during this time period as well. Futurist110 (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

America had the reputation of a land of opportunity, and (until the 1920s) an open door policy. Western Europe had been hostile to Jews over the centuries, and still was not exactly friendly, and might not be thrilled by Jewish immigration. America had not had pogroms, had the reputation of a less-stratified society, and it was said you could become wealthy in the goldene land. Both of my grandfathers came over in the early 20th century (one after a stint in Montreal). I went back to the ancestral village in southern Poland four years ago, with one of my brothers. It did not look like it brimmed with opportunity.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. had some anti-Semitism as well, and did Western Europe actually have any pogroms in the 19th century? Wait--your grandfather is Jewish and currently lives in Poland? That's pretty cool, considering that there are extremely few Jews in Poland right now. I wasn't talking about Poland, though, but about such countries as France, Britain, Germany, the Scandivanian countries, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, the Low Countries, and Austria. Also, I want to point about that some Western European countries (France, etc.) did have an open door immigration policy in the 19th and early 20th centuries as well. Futurist110 (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

My grandfather is no longer with us (these 37 years) but he came from a small town in what is now Southern Poland. He vastly preferred the Bronx, and subsequently Miami Beach. We did get to speak, when we visited Wola Raniżowska, with an elderly man (through a translator) who remembered the 1940s, though he was reticent.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, France had the Dreyfus Affair. That'd turn me off, right there. --Activism1234 06:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It would have probably turned me off as well, until Dreyfus would have been exonerated and the French would have admitted that they made fools of themselves. After that point, I'd be more turned on by France. Futurist110 (talk) 06:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. French anti-Semitism still ran high at that point, and was only really exonerated due to outrage from some French sectors and a load of evidence that would've ashamed France. There were still newspapers which were openly anti-Semitic and discrimination, as in any European country. And the fact that Dreyfuss was imprisoned to begin with, when it was known that the accusations were false and baseless, would've been deeply disturbing (indeed, sufficient to trigger Herzl's motivation for Zionism). Of course, this is just one example of such (not saying that there wasn't discrimination either in the U.S., but certainly wasn't as full-blown). --Activism1234 06:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

At least according to legend, the opportunity of America was a big deal. Streets paved with gold and all that. Chance to make it big.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that has proved true for many immigrants, such as Andrew Carnegie. --Activism1234 06:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"Many Jews landing in England actually intended to go to America, but about 120,000 stayed in this country."[5]. See also History of the Jews in England. Alansplodge (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I will just add to what others have pointed out before, namely that there was still anti-Semitism in Western Europe in the 19th and early 20th century. Apparently Jews weren't granted equality before the law in Sweden till 1910. Even if the actual situation might have been better in the past, rumours and attitudes have a tendency to die hard, so that restrictions on Jews, even if they might no longer be in force, might still be seen as a deterrent. (Even if they were no longer in force, the fact that such regulations had once existed could imply that they would be re-introduced.)

As for choosing America over Europe, I think it was probably due to the fact that it was a trend in the times. In addition to Jews going to America, there were also a lot of Western Europeans leaving Europe for America. Between 1850 and 1930, about 5 million Germans immigrated to the United States, along with 3.5 million Brits and 4.5 millions Irish. This would seem to imply that even if living conditions in Europe were 'comparable' to those of the USA, there was still something that was more alluring in the US compared to Europe. As others have pointed out, the perception that you could make it big 'across the pond'. In addition, of course, this was a period when the US was growing territorially, so there was enough land for the immigrants (pace Native Americans), whereas in Europe, the land was already settled. And, if you're first going to relocate, why not go to where you believe your life can be the best it can, as compared to going for 'somewhere close', where it will be OK? V85 (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It was a well-trodden path, due to competition, steerage fares were relatively low, and there was some expectation of help on the other side from those who had already made it across. There were mutual aid societies, often broken down by religion and then by home town or country, that helped out with initial loans, and of course you repaid. My maternal grandfather was a member of such a society, though, unfortunately, I cannot remember the name of it, but it was the name of a town, though oddly enough, not the place he came from (he was from Minsk). He and my grandmother are buried in a plot in a section which the society bought for its members, and you paid for so much a week. Wages were often higher in the US, too, for the same work, that was a great attraction and far from unknown, in fact it was advertised, as were the prices of goods, selected of course for best effect.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

who are considered to be the 3 most greatest men who ever lived?

who are considered to be the 3 greatest men who ever lived? Or, if there is no consensus, what are some common suggestions for the 3 greatest men who ever lived? --80.99.254.208 (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously there is no consensus. If you polled the world's population, probably lots of people would list Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddha. Most people listing one of these as #1 probably wouldn't put the others in their top 3. Staecker (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Define "great" or "greatest". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If one defines it by the person's impact on humanity and human history, then Alexander the Great and Adolf Hitler would be candidates for the top three along with the religious figures already mentioned. (Hitler's impact was overwhelmingly negative, though, whereas Alexander's ideology was pretty harmless, and his biggest flaw was alcoholism.) Some might make a case for Karl Marx or Mahatma Gandhi.

Going with more traditional definitions of greatness, maybe Leonidas is your man. Or Socrates, who was also a keen soldier as well as his other qualities, according to a biased source. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The romantic image of Leonidas prevails after 300 I see. The reality was darker. Leonidas was a Spartan citizen, a spartiate. True, the spartiate hoplites are unparalleled in battle in Ancient Greece, but that's because from childhood, all they did was train for combat, and I mean all. Ask yourself who farmed their fields and did the rest of the labor required for their city and you'll get the darker truth. Spartans were like the Nazis of Ancient Greece, eugenics and slavery. They even had their own version of the Gestapo. I personally prefer the Theban boeotarch Epaminondas. Elected by democratic assembly, cheeky in his spiting of the Spartan King Agesilaus II, a genius in battle and defeated the Spartans several times (something that had never been done for decades prior to that), shattered the Spartan hold over Peloponnese, and freed the Messenians from 200 years of Spartan slavery.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That's why Demiurge went with the traditional definitions of greatness. By that definition, Hitler would certainly be one of the greatest people to ever live. He wasn't even particularly cruel compared to the Spartans, the Mongolians under Genghis Khan, or the Spanish conquistadors--he just happened to have far more resources and better technology. --99.227.95.108 (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Just saying. Most people who've watched the movie think Leonidas was a pillar of virtue and personal sacrifice. He wasn't. He was simply a product of his upbringing. Like all spartiates, he was arrogant and bloodthirsty, literally bred to be unquestioning supersoldiers of the Spartan state. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

For one version of the most influential persons in history, see The 100 (version of 20:47, 24 August 2012), where sentence 3 of paragraph 3 is incorrect grammatically and ambiguous, because "substituted … with" should be either "substituted … for" or "replaced … with", which have opposite meanings.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The article "List of books about Jesus" (version of 19:01, 22 May 2012) mentions a book titled The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived and published in 1990.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Leonidas? Heh, give me a break. This is an unanswerable question, all you got is personal opinion, and completely against reference desk guidelines. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hah! What a joke, Saddhiyama. I've raised this issue more than once of recent times, but it's clear the implicit consensus is for answering any and all questions with unreferenced opinions. The more the merrier, it often seems. Please join me out in the wilderness, where our pitiful cries may yet one day stand a chance of being heard. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Who from wikipedia wrote the Cyclops page. Also Who wrote Asclepius on Wiki Doc.

Sorry about the mistakes in the first page. Ignore the first question I wrote. I got drunk yesterday. I still have the effects from it. Read the edited question I wrote right now.

No one here seems to know the answear to my question. So do any of you know who does. I want to talk to them. I read three pages on wikipedia that says. Zeus retured Asclepius and the Cyclops from Hades. I know Asclepius was made into a god. Greek mythology teachers confirm. One told me that no writer said who made Asclepius into a god. That does not madder. What I want to know. Two Greek mythology teachers told me that no soruce ever says. That Zeus returned the Cyclops from Hades. After Apollo killed them. I know that a Sicily legend says. The ghost's of the Cyclops dwell under the volcano mount Etna. If it is true that Zeus returned the Cyclops to mount Etna. I want to know who put it on the wikipedia pages. And how they got that information. What ancient writer says it. It is not written by Hesdoid. I cant spell his name. However I know for a fact that hesdiod did not write about it. Neither did the guy who wrote the play about Apollo killing the Cyclops for Zeus killing his son Asclepius. He was a slave to a king for one year. I know that. I also know how ever. I cant spell his name. I'm not going to try. I will just say. I know the play says nothing about Zeus returning the Cyclops from Hades. because I read it. So what writer wrote about Zeus returning the Cyclops from Hades. Because none of the writer's on the Cyclops page. Said anything about it. Who wrote the Cyclops page and the Asclepius page. Sorry about this question being long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.228.62 (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Revision history of Wikipedia's page Asclepius - this tells you who wrote it.
• Revision history of Wikipedia's page Cyclops - this tells you who wrote that.

How do you know that Hesiod did not write about these things?

Also, are you aware that Zeus, Apollo and the Cyclopes are fictional, or at best mythological? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The play you are referring to is Alcestis by Euripides, by the way (and you're right, it doesn't say that). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The OP is correct that Hesiod's Theogony contains nothing about the Cyclopes' being released from the underworld by Zeus. It does say that Zeus freed the Hekatonkheires from Tartarus and enlisted them in the fight against the Titans, but basically all Hesiod recounts about the Cyclopes is their parentage, names, and one-eyedness. Everything in Cyclops#Hesiod after the first three sentences is incorrect as an account of what's in the Theogony. Deor (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Me again Thankyou for your feedback. And by the way Demiurge1000. Thank you for helping me contact the writer's. My responce to your commet about Greek Mythology not being real. Doesn't madder. Greek Mythology madder's to me. I'm obessed with it. In the most crazy way. You can say I'm insane. Because I have OCD. I also have Bio polar. Greek Mythology is the most important thing in my life. I decided when I was a kid To put it first in life. Before everything else. Even people and my life. I have OCD really bad. It's a serious Illness. So accuse me for being weird. And insane. And obessed. I am a over emotional person no one can understand that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.228.62 (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Is a Unitarian Universalist church a religious organization or an interfaith organization?

Definition of Religion: Religion is the adherence to codified beliefs and rituals that generally involve a faith in a spiritual nature and a study of inherited ancestral traditions, knowledge and wisdom related to understanding human life. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to faith as well as to the larger shared systems of belief.

OK. This definitely does not match up to the Unitarian Universalist church, which seeks to include different religious traditions into its own. It originates from Christianity and Judaism, but allows members to have their own theological beliefs. At the same time, they refer to God as if they are monotheists, not polytheists. They claim themselves to be a religious organization, but I suspect they lie closer to interfaith organization or monotheistic interfaith organization. Seldom do they say "the gods"; rather, they would say "God loves all," as if they believe in one god. They lack a specific creed; rather, people of established religions can become a Unitarian Universalist. In that way, the group does not seem to be any different from the ecumenical Christian organization, Habitat for Humanity. So, what's with the "religious" label? What's so religious about the organization when there are no set of codified beliefs or shared creed or set of rituals that every member in the organization share? Do they call themselves "religious" in a sense like Confucianism, which is more of an ethical-philosophical belief system?

Just wondering.

75.185.79.52 (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

From my understanding, as one who would call themselves a Unitarian Universalist, God is all, is in all: in whom we live, move and have our being. The religion side is taking religious practices, rituals and beliefs from wherever they occur, examining them to see how they work and fit together, and whether they have any benefit to others on their spiritual paths. We meet together on a regular basis, but services tend to be - em, interesting and thought-provoking. If you're looking for the same ritual week after week go to an Anglican church! The idea is to support each other on our spiritual paths. We have atheists attend our services too. Personally I don't call myself "religious" because of the connotation of "ritual": I call myself "spiritual". The closest we get to a shared belief system is the Seven Principles, listed in the article I linked to. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Interesting insider's perspective. However, this brings up some concerns. If there are atheists in your church, how in the world are atheists going to be interested in participating in theology? Atheism is by definition the lack of belief in a god. If one does not believe in a god, then how can one "study" gods? Atheists can, however, study religion or sacred texts, which may or may not include gods. By the name "Unitarian", it implies that there is one god. By the name "Universalist", it implies that God is everywhere. See how this claim can easily be perceived as doctrine? If this is one of the doctrines of the church, then someone who is an atheist or polytheist will most likely disagree. They may agree with the humanitarian principles, but they will disagree that there is no god or that there are many gods. In addition, the Seven Principles are so humanistic that that it is inconceivable to think that other religions will disagree with them. What kind of religion in the world would promote cruelty and suffering? What kind of religion in the world would promote torture and killing? What kind of religion in the world would condone evil? Based on the points I have addressed, it seems that there really is nothing unique in Unitarian Universalism; it seems that it's leaning more towards interfaith, or a monotheistic interfaith group that welcomes people from different religious backgrounds and worships together as one. 20:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.79.52 (talk)

The "Universalist" started out as a counter-Calvinist position, in other words that everyone was "saved" by the death and resurrection Jesus Christ, as opposed to only a limited number of believers being saved. The notion that God is everywhere and in everything is called panentheism. "Unitarian" church started out as one of the first sects of Protestant Christianity: indeed the one I go to is over 400 years old. It started out as recognising that God is one being, rather than divided into three (Trinitarianism). The ethos of the modern religion is to promote this sort of discussion and to see where truth may lie. To this end we try and avoid the "you're wrong and you're going to hell" type of religious dialogue, which gets us nowhere. As to "what kind of religion in the world would promote torture and killing", see Thuggee. I wouldn't disagree with your analysis of the UU religion, but it has a history which is valued and recognised. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to be fair on the first point, I am a Christian who is a member of a Southern Baptist church, and I can say unambiguously that we want athiests in our Church. From a Christian perspective, that's kinda the entire point, per Matthew 28:18-20 and Acts 1:8. Again, just speaking for myself as an Evangelical Christian, we believe that our message is for the unbeliever as much, if not more than, for the believer. For any missionary religion, which seeks converts, reaching other with their message seems like it would be a goal, and I don't find it surprising that the UU faith would seek out athiests. Again, I am not a UU, so I don't want to speak for them, but I know as a Christian, I definately want athiests to attend my church. --Jayron32 22:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The quote is known as the "Great Commission", and reading straightforwardly, it's about baptizing people in the name of the father, son, and the holy spirit. I do not think Unitarian Universalist has an official creed, but rather "a diverse theology" where everyone chooses his or her own path to a monotheistic god or higher power. Unitarian Universalist tolerate other religious views and traditions and allow them in the church, because they see different theologies are personal pursuits to God. Christianity does not tolerate other views and traditions and allow them in the church, because it has a fixed creed that varies across denominations, but united in the belief of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, I think Christians expect members in their churches to believe in the same core beliefs as they do: that Jesus is the Christ, that Jesus died for their sins, that Jesus is their savior, that Jesus resurrected from the dead, etc. 23:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.79.52 (talk)

Yes, but as a Christian, how do you bring someone to those beliefs unless they are sitting in the Church getting the message? If Christians only worship with other Christians, and keep everyone else out, then it is a closed system. Of course, some Christian churches work that way, and some Christians work that way. But my personal theology doesn't read that as Christ's intention for his church. --Jayron32 01:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not think we are on the same page. I am not talking about allowing or disallowing atheists to join a Christian church, which I think is what you are talking about. I am merely wondering in the original inquiry whether or not Unitarian Universalism would be considered a religious group versus an interfaith organization. In my opinion, it seems that the group leans more toward interfaith organization. Religion is a set of cultural beliefs that explains the world around a society or group of people in some way and may influence how to live one's life. It binds people together, because it is typically a single coherent worldview. Individuals may add their own intricacies, habits, personal lifestyle choices, but the underlying religion - which is a deep facet in those people's lives - connect the individuals together into one culture. Religion is not just about religious beliefs or rituals; it is a culture with a set of beliefs handed down from generation to generation and gives people a cultural identity. Therefore, people can be a "cultural Catholic" or "cultural Mormon" or "cultural Jew" or "cultural Muslim". Those types of people do not believe in the personal god of the religion, yet they identify with the human side or the cultural side. For Unitarian Universalism, there is a different situation: is it possible for one to be a "cultural Unitarian Universalist" or would that kind of person would simply be known as a "secular humanist"? In any case, Unitarian Universalism is a very strange "religion", simply due to its self-described "diverse theologies", in which individuals borrow concepts and rituals that mean to them from their native religions and put them in a new "religion". It seems as if these individuals tear away the original meaning of those rituals and place them in a new situation - a situation that simply uses the original rituals as a religious display rather than a deep religious meaning. Diversity and the acceptance of diversity are great, yet I think there is something lacking with something so diverse - unity. And since what unifies Unitarian Universalists together are really shared human values in many religions, it seems that it is more of an interfaith group with a leaning toward monotheism. I wonder how the monotheistic aspect work with the "diverse" aspect. What? Polytheists don't count? 00:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.79.52 (talk)

See 1 Corinthians 1:10 and 2 Corinthians 6:14 and Ephesians 4:5.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Colton Harris-Moore

How many years he has to serve in jail? I don't really understand how it works. There are the federal charge with 6.5 years and the state charge with 7 years. So he will end up getting 13.5 years in prison? Or will he end up getting 7 years total?184.97.225.6 (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

His article says, 'his federal sentence will be served jointly with state prison time'. I understand that to be 7 years in total. Dalliance (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And when did he start stealing things? I mean not when he was little. When he started to steal thing like cars, boats and airplane that eventually leads to his capture in 2010.184.97.225.6 (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Most Evil

I like the TV show Most Evil, and I saw the episode Deadly Desires in which several serial killers are featured, and one of them is Westley Allan Dodd to whom they categorize as one of the most evil serial killers in history. Our own article on him agrees with that. Is that right to categorize someone as evil rather than sick or something like that? Nienk (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It might or might not be right, but I doubt it's encyclopedic. The refdesk is not really the place to suggest corrections to articles, though. You might deal with that article directly, or start a conversation on the Wikipedia:Village Pump if you think it's a more systematic problem --Trovatore (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Now I've looked at the article — it doesn't say he was "most evil", just that he "has been called" that, and that claim appears to be sourced. I'm not completely sure it belongs in the second sentence, and I'm also not sure it should just say he has been called evil without naming those that called him that in the same sentence, but it is not as bad a problem as would be an article that flat out called him evil itself. --Trovatore (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? I don't think he is the most evil at all. He is evil hell yea but not the "most". I have heard and read way worse people than him, like killing more people, more evil ways of torture or killing...65.128.133.237 (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps... but what you or I think does not matter... what sources think, on the other hand, might (That depends on the source). Since apparently several sources have called him "most" evil, we at least need to examine who called him that... then we have to decide whether their opinion is worth mentioning in the article (See WP:UNDUE). Blueboar (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I want to better understand where Wikipedia's sources come from.

When writing on History. The people that work for Wikipedia. Where do they get all their information on History. What can cause it to be incorrect. Why is their allways a disbute. About Wikipedia giving false information. I know they ofter change things. They correct mistakes. Ive also read that they have had false information about people in pages. That have sit out for years. I know its hard to give correct information about famous people. There's allways rumors about people. I like to know how the writer's who are working for Wikipedia for free. What is the system they use. To write their pages. On history can they ever give incorrect historic information. What is their editing system they use. And the people who edit articles. I know how that works they debate. I'm just making sure that Wikipedia on history is not ever a persons opion or mistake on memory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.228.62 (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles (the good ones, anyway) cite their sources. You can look up the reference for a particular fact for yourself to verify it. Mistakes can certainly happen, which is why we recommend anyone using Wikipedia for serious research check the sources themselves instead of relying on Wikipedia. --Tango (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Contributors get their information from reliable sources that have previously been published elsewhere and can be verified. Personal opinion and unsupported anecdotes are not acceptable, and may be removed on sight. Disagreements over wording, use of reliably sourced information, or controversial topics, are dealt with by discussion. The blue links will take you to certain key policies that direct the work of the volunteers. - Karenjc 22:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is edited by thousands and thousands of people: some of them are careful and conscientious about getting solid references. Some of them mean well, but do not understand about reliable sources. Some of them are vandals. --ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:HISTRS for the standards for sourcing for history articles. Like most standards, they are regularly neglected in production environments. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately for Wikipedia, the vast majority of qualified historians with unlimited access to public libraries and typically own an extensive personal library prefer to get paid for their time-consuming work, therefore Wikipedia must needs make do with us stumbling, bumbling amateurs and plebs who have to hunt down sources on the Internet.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There are also world experts in various fields who like to give some of their time gratis, and with their true identities concealed, as a form of public service. For some, it's a kind of magnificent obsession. Modesty prevents me from naming myself as the prime example of these noble, inspirational and, most importantly, self-effacing contributors. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Race/Ethnicity/Religion in Historical National Censuses

Which (national) censuses were the first to record race, ethnicity, and/or religion? I know that the U.S. recorded data/info about race since its very first census in 1790, and likewise Russia for ethnicity since 1897. What about other countries, though? Futurist110 (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the table in Census in the United Kingdom, a question on "ethnic group" wasn't added until 1991, so I think we can safely say the UK wasn't the first. --Tango (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this info. I'm actually very surprised that it took the U.K. until the closing of the Cold War to add an ethnicity category to its census. Futurist110 (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. census is forbidden from asking about a person's religion. AnonMoos (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I knew that, but why? Also, I was asking about at least one of the three things that I mentioned, not necessarily all three combined. Futurist110 (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. government has an uneasy relationship with religion owing to the clauses on religion in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. While asking an open-ended question on a census would likely be OK, many govenrment organizations and functions tend to take the most restrictive approach, which is to ignore religion altogether, that way they stand no chance of being accused of violating constitutional rights. --Jayron32 02:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Well, at least the U.S. still keeps collecting data on race, which is very useful and interesting for demographic purposes. Futurist110 (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It says on the Argentine Jews and German census of 1895 Wikipedia articles that some ethnicities (Jews in Argentina, Germans and Poles in Germany) and/or religions (Catholics and Protestants in Germany) were counted in those countries in the censuses in 1895 there. Futurist110 (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the answer would be much older than previous suggestions. I don't know if race/religion was included in the censuses organised by the Roman Empire, China's Han Dynasty, Ancient Egypt etc, but it was definitely relevant to the Rashidun Caliphate, who had different laws and taxation for muslims and non-muslims. According to Michael the Syrian, the purpose of the census was specifically to introduce a poll tax on Christians (he's biased, of course, but presumably this was at least part of the reason). 59.108.42.46 (talk) 04:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It's called jizya, and since it's a sort of religious discrimination mandated in the Qur'an, I fail to see how a Christian reporting its existence amounts to "bias". Unless you consider complaining about being taxed, rather than murdered outright, a form of bias? μηδείς (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Biased in the sense of giving an exaggerated importance to Christians, rather than being a general survey of the taxable population which Christians were just a part of. 220.231.34.3 (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a question, though--did the various Muslim empires take censuses by person, or by household? I'm only talking and asking about censuses by person here. Futurist110 (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Article 1, Sec. 2 of the US Constitution requires a census every 10 years, with the first being held in 1790. As each state’s number of congressional representatives is determined by population (“the number of whole free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, [and] three fifths of all other persons”), the need for a periodic census was evident. The subsequent law (March 1, 1790) directed that the names of the heads of families be recorded, the number of white males sixteen and older, the number of white males under sixteen, the number of white females, the number of all other free persons, and the number of slaves. Slaves were first identified by name in the US census of 1850.DOR (HK) (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but I knew that, as evidenced by my first comment in this thread. Futurist110 (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. census only began recording individual names in 1850. Before that only the head of family's name was recorded and data on other family members (so by household, not individual). 75.41.109.190 (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

True, but the total population count before 1850 was by individuals, not by households. Futurist110 (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember something about Jesus, and Herod, and a census, and his father Joseph's ancestral hometown? Was that in the 1830's?μηδείς (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

But did that census ask about race and/or religion? If we're just looking for the earliest census, there are plenty of pre-Roman examples 220.231.34.3 (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I only want the first censuses that asked for ethnicity, race, and/or religion and which calculated the total number of people rather than merely the total number of households. Futurist110 (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is there were tribal implications in the idea that people had to return to their hometown for that census. My understanding is that its existence is dubious historically, but the fact that it was described matter-of-factly implies that sort of thing wasn't unheard of. The OP has expressed his desire for a modern interpretation of race, etc., and he is entitled to ask the question he wants to ask. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You do realise the person you're replying to is the OP, don't you, Medeis? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep--I'm the OP. Futurist110 (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Release Date of Newest U.S. Population Projections?

http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/natproj.html

• Based on the above website, it appears that the U.S. Census Bureau releases new population projections every election year. My question is if anyone knows the timing for the release of this year's new U.S. Census population projections? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

August 27

Audiobook for . . .

Hi I am searching desperately for an audio book version of:

Save the Males:Why men matter and why women should care by Kathleen Parker 2008

I have checked almost a dozen audio CD places and audiobook sites but so far no luck :-( thanks for any help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.148.29 (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have reason to believe that someone made an audio version? Dismas|^(talk) 01:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I know that some e-readers like Amazon Kindle have a text-to-speech function. It is a bit unnatural, as opposed to an actual audio book, but if there is nothing else, there is always that. --Jayron32 02:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Though it should be noted that — I believe — publishers can disable that functionality on a per-book basis at their whim. So it may not actually be an option. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Audiobooks are more common in fiction than in non-fiction - and especially more serious non-fiction - because there isn't a market for them. With a serious non-fiction book, people want to be able to mark it up, refer to footnotes, make copies, compare pages in chapters, etc. and that makes the audiobook format less appealing to readers. (I assume you're not looking for this book for a visually impaired person; if you are, check with your local "books for the blind" organization.) --NellieBly (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Questions about law in the Victorian period

I am currently writing a novel set in the Victorian era in Australia. I have checked out books on the subject and searched the Internet, but I can't find out particular information on the legal system of the time. First, what was the difference between murder and manslaughter then, if they differentiated it in the first place? And if they did, what was the difference in sentences? Also, when was the first time female lawyers appeared? Thank you for your help, I much appreciate it.Southernlegacy (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Prior to 1901, as I'm sure you know, Australia was a collection of crown colonies. According to that article, each colony had its own independent legal system, largely based on English Common law but adjustable according to local circumstances. I would expect that in most places, if not everywhere, the answer to your question about murder versus manslaughter would have been the same as for Common law. Regarding female lawyers I have no information, but it would surprise me if there were any during the Victorian era. Looie496 (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Doing some digging, I found some information on pioneering female lawyers. Ethel Benjamin was New Zealand's first practicing female lawyer, and started practicing in the late Victorian era. Mary Hall was an early American female lawyer, and she practised in the Victorian era (1880s-1890s). Canadian Clara Brett Martin is noted as the first female lawyer in the British Empire, she started practising shortly before Ethel Benjamin. I can't find any information on who the first female lawyer in Australia would have been, but in other Anglophone countries it seems that there were a small handful of female lawyers in the late Victorian era. --Jayron32 05:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

For your first question therefore, a good place to start would be Manslaughter in English law. Alansplodge (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And some mention of manslaughter in 19th century Australia in Fault in Homicide: Towards a Schematic Approach to the Fault Elements for ... By Stanley Meng Heong Yeo (always assuming that Google Books lets you see this preview). Alansplodge (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Finally, the history of the concept of manslaughter in this paper which refers to Ireland, which too is based on the English system. Alansplodge (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Me again; it would seem that the relevant legislation in England, Wales and Ireland was the Offences against the Person Act 1861. A summary is here. Alansplodge (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And, slightly related, is The Merchant of Venice, a fictional work yes, and pre-Victorian (by several centuries) but one which is decidedly relevent to the OPs question. --Jayron32 15:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Try the national library. Zoonoses (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Countercultures

Besides Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice, is there any other countercultures articles on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.242 (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Counterculture (and its subcategories). AnonMoos (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why does the United States have relatively more shootings than most developed countries?

Ever since that Colorado theater shooting last month, there has been a number of high-profile shootings, like that one at a Sikh temple and at the Empire State Building. But I was wondering – why? I know it's probably because of the lack of effective gun laws, but what are other possible reasons, especially psychological or political? While there are a few other countries like Canada that have more guns per people, murders and shootings aren't as common. In fact, I'm not aware of any developed country that has shootings as frequent as the US. Why does America have so many shootings in the first place? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

One reason that comes to my mind, obviously, is how the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution affects gun politics in the United States. However, as Gun politics in the United States#Rate of homicides by firearm points out, violent crime rates in the United States are lower than in other advanced countries. Of course, you have the American news media who frequently likes to sensationalize every such shooting, plastering news of them everywhere to make them more "high-profile" than they actually should be. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course what counts as a violent crime varies from one country to another. As even the source for that paragraph in the US gun politics article (a report in the Daily Mail - whose entire raison d'être is to convince the English middle-classes that the country has gone to rack and ruin) concedes "In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured." The statistic in that article that is surely more relevant here, as the question is why does America have so many more shootings, is the homicide rate by firearm:- (from the same article) 3.0 per 100,000 people in the US and 0.07 per 100,000 people in the UK. If we compare homicide rates (what counts as a homicide varies between jurisdictions but there is far less variance than the fairly nebulous term "violent crime"), the US has a homicide rate of 4.2, the UK 1.2, Canada 1.6, Australia 1.0, France 1.1, Germany 0.8 (homicides per 100,000 population). Further comparisons can be made at the homicide rate article, but to sum up, the US has a homicide rate that's 3 to 4 times higher than comparable countries. Valiantis (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to mass shootings, they aren't actually very common even in the US -- they are very salient because of all the news coverage they receive. Canada has only 1/10 the population of the US so it would be expected to have only a tenth as many even if all factors were equal. If you are referring to individual shootings, in the US the majority are related to gang violence, a problem that is considerably less severe in most Canadian cities. Looie496 (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The average murder related to gang violence usually is barely mentioned in the national American news media. But once a mass shooting occurs, IMO and relatively speaking, the national media sort of acts like the "The sky is falling!" with all the coverage. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)The U.S. has a relatively higher Gini coefficient than other countries, and the consequences of poverty are harsher. For example, access of the poor or even the middle class to serious health care generally comes at the cost of bankruptcy, and advanced procedures like transplants are notoriously kept unavailable. In those cases where welfare is still given, or in impoverished neighborhoods, conditions are such that prison ethics, complete with an intolerance for snitching and a low value on human life, hold general sway. To the poorest, prison seems so inevitable, and justice so unreliable, that it scarcely serves as a deterrent. National and international gangs and cartels are the adaptive response to the prevailing conditions, and prisons serve as their recruiting ground rather than suppressing them. Wnt (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

More poverty, a smaller social safety net, and more lax gun laws. Futurist110 (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a new one. The inavailability of kidney transplants causes gun crime! If you want to see the utter absurdity of leftist thought, look no further. Instead, try the war on drugs (theft to support habits and gang turf disputes) if you want a rational explanation for the vast majority of gun violence in the US. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(You've yet again failed to place your comment following the one to which you are responding, and indent from it, so I've indented appropriately, in case you fix yours.) I agree that this is a tenuous link, but there was a movie made based on it: John Q. StuRat (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

So when you "awarded" IP 203 the "pedant award" without either signing it or indenting it, while I was being threatened with Nucular Jihad for assigning people one-character large stars, that was just a mistake, StuRat? Go jump in a lake. μηδείς (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And how exactly does one indent a pic ? I just added the signature. Will you be correcting your mistake ? I wasn't involved in the stars at all, so why bring that up ? And now your resorting to incivility, to boot ? StuRat (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The entire comment above was meant as a general one, not solely in response to Wnt, so I purposefully did not indent it and do not intend to. I suppose I should have put a smiley after the suggestion you jump in a lake, I didn't think using a phrase from looney toons would be taken as actively hostile. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't dispute the role of the War on Drugs in instigating crime, however ... aren't there anti-drug crusades in the other countries in this comparison? My feeling is that when life for the poor becomes so hazardous and squalid that prison hardly seems any worse, it loses its power to deter, even when it is used with unreasonable vindictiveness. Wnt (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Anti-drug crusades in non-American countries rarely involve killing people and seizing their assets. μηδείς (talk)

For the OP, avoiding as much of the debate as I can, you might be interested in The Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker. I don't have it handy, so I don't know if he directly addresses the cause of the rate of gun violence in America, but he does deal with the cultural norms that affect violence, and the impact of history. There is also an important specific example covered that might have general relevance, that is, the evidence suggesting differences in the psychological makeup of Southerners and Northerners in their response to conflict. The distinction is based on an experiment that shows (or proves, or suggests) that Southerners are more responsive to antagonism, and Pinker claims this is linked to the frontier state that persisted for longer in the South. The implication seems to be (at least as a partial explanation, surely not the whole one), that the American colonies were driven by a frontier mentality that persists today and even has lingering psychological consequences. You can draw your own conclusions from this sort of evidence, because it's not my area, but you might find the book useful. I emphasise that this does not neutralise the evidence and explanations of others, and I'm sure you can get some other (possibly better) reading suggestions here too, IBE (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I really like Pinker, and read a few hundred pages of that book. But I never did get to what his point was. μηδείς (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The children of Marie Juliette Louvet

Marie Juliette Louvet was the grandmother of Prince Rainier of Monaco. But she was not married to the reigning Prince of Monaco. She had a husband, and bore him children. What became of her children by her husband? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

French Wikipedia has a little more on her husband, see fr:Achille Delmaet. It appears he was a photographer known for taking nude pictures, but otherwise I can't find much more. The French article fr:Marie-Juliette Louvet also has a little bit more on the children, such as birth and death dates, but does not go into details. --Jayron32 06:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Can a full blooded African American can be as light or lighter?

Can a full blooded African American can be as light or lighter? Marley84 (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Look at Michael Jackson, for instance. Futurist110 (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What does "full blooded" mean? We're all full-blooded Africans, but we have varying degrees of time since our most recent ancestors lived there. Also, comparisons require a second thing to compare to. As light or lighter than what? If you want to research the variations within black people, the article Black people has some information to get you started. --Jayron32 06:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Im guessing he means that those who are not of mixed heritage (as in some who had the european slave owners' blood in them, or other more recent interracial marriages' offspring).

I would venture a guess to say it is possible, depending on where in Africa they came from (and by that, dont have mixed heritage with europeans or others). Ethiopians for example are considerably more lighter skinned than west/central or even southern africans. (though it sees some in the far south are lighter than the west and centre.)Lihaas (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Full blooded African American" is really not too meaningful -- traditionally mixed-race people have generally been considered to be black under the old One-drop rule... AnonMoos (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"About 30% of black Americans who take DNA tests to determine their African lineage prove to be descended from Europeans on their father's side, says Rick Kittles, scientific director of African Ancestry, a Washington, D.C., company that began offering the tests in 2003. Almost all black Americans whom Kittles has tested descended from African women, he says."[6]. Alansplodge (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to get it out of the way — there is also Albinism. It is also worth noting that there are numerous population groups in Africa. I presume you mean someone from sub-Saharan Africa, and not, say, North Africa. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You have to define the time of mixing arbitrarily. Don't forget Anthony and Cleopatra, Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. And of course the countless merchant crews trading gold and opium across the Mediterranean or along the ancient Suez Canal, or the many kingdoms which have moved from place to place along the Mediterranean shores in response to the demands of trade and the tides of war. People have been making booty calls over mid-sized seas for a very very long time. Of course, even aside from those such as the Egyptians and the Afar people whom one might say are mixed, there is also substantial variation among those within Africa - compare the images from Bushmen, who I assume have little introgression of European genes, to a notably dark-skinned group of Africans such as the Dinka people. Wnt (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Worthy of note is that culturally and by decent, Cleopatra was Greek. I'm not sure that any of her ancestors were natively Egyptian. See Ptolemaic dynasty for a history of her ancestors. Certainly, they adopted Egyptian culture and the trappings of the Pharaohs, but if we're going by the somewhat arbitrary rules that you are what your ancestors were, then she isn't any more "African" than Anthony was. --Jayron32 14:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Nefertiti, Queen of Egypt

To repeat Jayron, you do realize that Cleopatra, down to her name, was Hellenistic Greek? Even Nefertiti was hardly negroid. μηδείς (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, since my point was that people on either side of the sea have been of mixed race for a long time, this doesn't seem like an objection. Wnt (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, no. Everyone is of mixed race. The North Africans like Qaddafi have been largely "white". They are at most (Mubarak) 1/4 or less "negroid". There's hardly any point in pointing out that, say, Nefertiti was "black", even if you define Oksana Baiul as pure white and Hussain Bolt as pure black.

Charles Thompson , a friend of Ernest Hemingway during his first East Africa safari ?

Hello learned humanitarians ! I saw in the german version of the article Green Hills of Africa (§ "Überblick") that Hemingway hunted with a friend named Charles Thompson. Who may he be ? (there is a lot of them in "disambiguation"...) . Thanks a lot beforehand, t.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the Charles Thompson in question has his own Wikipedia entry. Key_West#Ernest_Hemingway says he was a hardware store owner. 109.144.206.241 (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

[7] has a little more information 109.144.206.241 (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot dear IP ! Arapaima (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What went wrong with Turkey?

I just read at Nature News that even 8000 to 9500 years ago, Turkey was apparently an innovator, producing the Indo-European languages. [8] Numerous animals were apparently domesticated there (even if nailing down the details is beyond my patience at the moment). My impression is that the prominence of Ancient Greece depended substantially on people from Turkey, under their control at the time, which then passed to Roman control with the same results, even becoming the core of the empire, before finally becoming part of the Muslim world, where they continued to remain preeminent, with technology far outstripping Europe, for example. And yet, somehow, the Ottoman Empire declined, advances in civil liberties were rebuffed, there was military and scientific stagnation, and they became the "sick man of Europe". Is there any systematic explanation for the change - a climate alteration, a change from land to sea shipping, some objective phenomenon that can explain why a country goes from perpetual preeminence to obscurity? Or is it all just random fluctuation? Wnt (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe it has to do with the dominance of religion over science. Similarly, when Christianity dominated over science in Europe in the Middle Ages, there was stagnation there, as well. StuRat (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I can sort of see this argument, but I'm not sure how much of this is fact and how much fiction. Islam did not prevent Jabir ibn Hayyan from becoming the first alchemist, indeed, inventing much of chemistry including ironically enough the distillation of alcohol. Avicenna was free to use wine for various medicinal purposes two centuries later. True, these were Persians, living in Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates ruled from Syria and Iraq, but I'll partially ignore that as much of the political territory was shared and it's not that much of a distance. Can you say for sure that religious fanaticism became more pronounced in the past few centuries? Wnt (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

StuRat's answer is, unfortunately, one that is completely ignorant of actual history. Islam was the preeminent language of learning during the so-called Middle Ages. Religion was not the reason that Europe lacked "science" during the Middle Ages (the Church was more or less the only benefactor of higher education and learning in Europe during that time and poured huge resources into astronomical research). StuRat is speaking about bad clichés and nothing more. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you really want to say " Islam was the preeminent language of learning " not "Arabic was..." or "Islam was the ... vehicle of learning"? OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree with somebody, prove them wrong, don't just call them ignorant, without proof. That just makes you look bad. And spending money on research is great, unless you constrain your researchers to keep any discoveries which run counter to your doctrine secret (like heliocentrism). StuRat (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand my argument. Neither Christianity or Islam is inherently anti-science. However, at times, both developed an anti-science attitude. These are the times when those cultures stagnated. Now, as to why those religions had such attitudes at times and not others, that's more complicated. Having a single religious leader (like the Pope) who dominated all secular leaders was a factor in Europe. After the Reformation, the power of the Pope was reduced, allowing for more freedom for those with ideas that ran counter to The Church, including scientists, especially in Northern Europe. StuRat (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a good explanation for an elemenary school class maybe, but fortunately not really at all how things actually worked. See, I don't know, science in the Middle Ages for one thing. (I don't know what else to say because I know I've corrected you on this point numerous times in the past, and I'm sure many others have too, but if you don't care, then all we can ask is for you to stop repeating it...) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have to back Adam Bishop on this regarding Christianity and Science in the Middle Ages. The general regression Europe experienced (in many areas, not just learning) had to do with environmental factors mostly unrelated to religion, and likely a lot more to do with demographic factors. Foremost was the de-urbanization that occured: the number and density of cities declined dramatically after the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, and cities are known to be the home of innovation. This article in Scientific American magazine contains a good overview, but there's been a lot of studies, especially recently, on this topic, and there is a direct correlation between urban life and technological and cultural advancement. It would follow, then, that if people are abandoning the cities, technology and learning are going to take a hit. Furthermore, Europe in the middle ages experienced a sharp and shocking decline in population, especially those areas which had formerly been part of the Western Roman Empire, owing to widespread famine, and the Black Death. Certainly, advancements were made and Europe did advance in some areas during the time period, but that was largely in spite of the environment that people were living in, which given the historical context one would easily predict a few steps backwards. Of final note, the Catholic Church was, in many ways, the major force for what knowledge was preserved, since often the only literate people were the clergy, and they spent a lot of time copying ancient texts (not just the Bible, but also secular and pre-christian works) and many of the major scientific minds of the age were Christian clergy, including Roger Bacon and Robert Grosseteste and William of Ockham, all of whom had a profound influence on the development of modern science. --Jayron32 15:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Some points:

1) What caused people to move out of cities ?

2) Europe was in decline long before the Black Death, so it's population decline was not the driving factor.

3) Of course many of the scientists at the time were religious people, since there was very little opportunity for anyone not involved in The Church to pursue such studies, and they would risk running afoul of religious doctrine. StuRat (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Europe's population decline preceded the black death by some time. It should be noted that there were actually two population collapses, one at the end of the Roman Empire time, and one during the Late Middle Ages. The so-called High Middle Ages featured a population boom. See Medieval demography, which specifically mentions deurbanization. There are lots of possible explanations as to why the cities depopulated so much during the middle ages. Cities have advantages and disadvantages. One of the key issues is that large urban populations need armies to defend them; the pull out of the Roman legions out of many of areas coincided with the deurbanization, that is not a coincidence as cities are hard to defend and also an attractive target for raiders, being a concentration of wealth. Agricultural production also declined, perhaps due to poor soil management or climatic changes, and less food means that the cities can't support as many people. Plagues also tend to have a much greater effect on the cities: they breed plagues due to close proximity of people. The population curve would be somewhat W shaped, with a steep decline at the end of Classical antiquity and a steep rebound at the early modern period. In between, the population remained somewhat stagnant, with a bit of a hump in the curve around the 1100s and 1200s. The reason for point #3 is still deurbanization: with the abandonment of the cities, the Church became the only place which was wealthy enough and with enough training to maintain knowledge and learning. The Church didn't cause deurbanization, it had very little to do with it. --Jayron32 20:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I bet both deurbanization and depopulation were due to losing the Roman system of water engineering (aqueducts and such), which brought in clean water and removed sewage (although they didn't treat it). By comparison, dumping sewage in the streets was a recipe for disaster. But then the question becomes, why was this technology largely lost after the Romans ? StuRat (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Rome underwent a quick decline in population when the grain deliveries from Egypt and the province of "Africa" (i.e. current-day northern Tunisia and northeastern Algeria) were cut off... AnonMoos (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't write my response to you (StuRat), really — I wrote it for anybody out there uninformed enough not to realize that you were just being ignorant. I know better than to give you actual book references, and am highly dubious that you will bother to actually learn anything new that goes against your pre-held beliefs, but hey, go ahead and prove me wrong! Start out with Islam_and_science#History and see where you get. Maybe check out the Islamic Golden Age. There's a lot you appear to know nothing about, so it's unclear to me exactly where to start. Try looking at Catholic Church and science, focusing on the middle ages. (Of course, real historians don't even like to use the category Middle Ages, but let's set that aside for now.) There are lots of variables involved in the relationship between Islam and science, but any potential issues relating to Islam and science — which frankly are unlikely to apply to Turkey anyway, which you may or may not know is one of the most "progressive" Islamic republics in the Middle East — are extremely recent. But anyway, there are some nice references. Feel free to back up your own knee-jerk opinions with a few while you're at it. You may have areas of expertise, StuRat, but you have shown again and again on here that the study of history is not one of them. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You apparently are too ignorant to know about the Galileo affair. Note that for every scientist who was put on trial by The Church for opposing their doctrine, many more were either warned quietly and backed off, or choose never to say or print anything publicly which The Church might find offensive. So, the cases that actually came down to a trial are but the tip of the iceberg. For example "Copernicus delayed publication of his book, perhaps from fear of criticism—a fear delicately expressed in the subsequent dedication of his masterpiece to Pope Paul III" (from Catholic Church and science). Then we have Catholic_Church_and_science#Gessner. Also see List of authors and works on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. In the Muslim world, we have the destruction of the Istanbul observatory of Taqi al-Din. Most relevant to the OP is why the Islamic Golden Age came to an end: "...in addition to invasion by the Mongols and crusaders and the destruction of libraries and madrasahs, it has also been suggested that political mismanagement and the stifling of ijtihad (independent reasoning) in the 12th century in favor of institutionalised taqleed (imitation) thinking played a part." In the case of The Crusades, here we have a case of Christianity stifling Muslim science. StuRat (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That ignores the fact that Galileo did not live in the Middle Ages, he lived during the Protestant Reformation, and the political milleu surounding him was very different than the middle ages. This does not excuse what the Church did to him, which was without question inexcusable, however inexcusable is not a synonym for unexplainable, and understanding what happened to Galileo necessitates understaning the political landscape of early 17th century Europe, which was some half a millenium after the time period we're talking about. Connecting the dots between the loss of learning in the middle ages and what the church did to Galileo belies a complete misreading of history and a huge conflation of unrelated issues. The 1600s were NOT the 1100s. It should also be noted that the Church's efforts against Galileo were largely impotent; learning and technological advances when unabated despite their efforts, while in the middle ages, when Church clergy was at the vanguard of scientific advances some 400 years earlier, and showed no doctrinal objections to sceintific study AT ALL, Europe was moving backwards. There just isn't any evidence that there was any causal relationship between church doctrine that was hostile to science (which again, occured in the early 1600s during the Protestant Reformation and must be understood in that context) and the much earlier decline of European civilization and learning that occured after the fall of the Western Empire. It is wrong to make that connection chronologically, and it doesn't bear out with the actual facts of the history. --Jayron32 20:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There's also the tendency of The Church to keep scholarly works in Latin, Greek, or other classic languages, making them inaccessible to the vast majority. But perhaps it's what they didn't do when they were dominant that's more to the point. For example, there was no universal education until secular authorities became preeminent. So, their policies assured a small educated elite and ignorant masses, which doesn't lead to rapid development. StuRat (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a fair enough criticism that the Church may have had the means to spread learning farther than it did; however I think you overestimate its role. Considering the demographic, economic, and environmental events in Europe between 500-1500, any efforts a small smattering of monks may have had could have amounted to pissing in the ocean. You can be correct that the Church centers of learning remained inwards looking and did not disseminate what they knew to the general population, but I don't think that made much of a difference one way or the other. --Jayron32 22:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it ? The Renaissance was somewhat kicked off by a rediscovery of the works of the ancient Greeks, etc. If that knowledge had been widespread earlier, perhaps we would have gotten an earlier Renaissance. As I noted previously, Roman water engineering principles would have been quite valuable. StuRat (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The social, economic, and environmental conditions present when the Renaissance happened enabled people the leisure time, especially in the Urban centers of Italy initially, and then in other urban centers, to study the ancient classic texts. You're still putting the cart before the horse. --Jayron32 23:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

But many of those social, economic, and environmental conditions were a result of a lack of ancient knowledge. Knowledge and social, economic, and environmental conditions are interdependent, not simply cause and effect. StuRat (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Except the renaissance didn't result in clean water coming to the cities again. It wasn't by reading Aristotle and Livy and Cicero that people stopped shitting where they drank. It wasn't until people like Joseph Aspdin developed portland cement that building materials aproached the type of concrete that the Romans used to build the aqueducts, and engineers like Joseph Bazalgette started building sewerage containment and transport facilities, and that came in the 1800s. Those men worked in the UK, but similar developments occured in other major cities at around the same time. Water supply and sanitation in the United States confirms that even in the U.S. people didn't figure out it would be a good idea to seperate human fecal waste from water supplies until the 1880s or so. Again, if you're going to hang your hat on clean water supplies as being the key allowing urbanization, it neither was a result of studying classical learning, nor did it come about prior to the regrowth of cities. Look Stu, myself and several others have presented actual facts from the historical record to back up our position. You've asserted a lot of things, but haven't presented a single bit of evidence that your notions are correct. You can't just assert stuff as reality without any evidence, and especially when evidentiary-based counterarguments are presented. --Jayron32 00:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

But how was the Roman knowledge of building cement lost ? Was it in one or more of the many libraries destroyed by religious conflict ? If so, we might have had decent sanitation far earlier. And yes, once it became the norm to have a total lack of sanitation, then you not only had the lack of technology to overcome, but also tradition. StuRat (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Practical knowledge like mixing concrete isn't something that's preserved in libraries. How many contractors do you know today that go to a library to figure out how to mix concrete? The knowledge wasn't lost because libraries were destroyed or people stopped reading the books therein. Lots of knowledge gets lost because it is procedural knowledge that is passed from person-to-person, and when the people who know how to do something stop teaching it to others, the knowledge gets lost. Without people living in cities, there wasn't a need for concrete mixers and building on that scale. People living in mud huts don't have much use for such knowledge. Concrete is an almost purely urban technology: no cities, no need for concrete. The decline in urbanization caused the knowledge of how to build good cities to decline as well: without the legions to defend the cities, people left them. Without people in the cities, there was no need for the sort of monumental building, including aqueducts and sewers, that cities needed. When people returned to the cities some thousand years later, they had to relearn all of that stuff from first principles because no one had been doing it for a thousand years, not because someone burnt a book. --Jayron32 04:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I certainly would expect to find a recipe for concrete in a library. And cities didn't disappear entirely. StuRat (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually it was described in De Architectura by Vitruvius. Anyway...what does any of this have to do with anything? There isn't even a coherent argument happening here, much less anything that has to do with the original question. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Galileo got in trouble mostly because he was a dick about it (insulting the Pope, etc). Also, the crusades had absolutely nothing to do with stifling Muslim science. I'm not even sure how that would have worked. Do you have an example of this? If anything the crusades facilitated introducing Muslim science into Europe, from another direction (since it was already happening in Spain and Sicily). The Mongol destruction of Baghdad was far more destructive than anything the crusades ever did (well, akin to the crusader sack of Constantinople, anyway...but that had no effect on Muslim science either, heh). Adam Bishop (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

As stated above, by the destruction of libraries, institutions of learning, etc. And, more subtly, during a religious war resources will go to armaments and religious indoctrination, not science (with an exception for sciences having immediate military applications). StuRat (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Improbable. Religious indoctrination is not compatible with science.--Askedonty (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Says you. --Jayron32 22:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sincerily I have not a final answer about that. Major religions seem all to have begun more or less in revolutionary ways, obviously restricting freedom of though or at least, of expression. But my remark concerned only indoctrination. --Askedonty (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. These were Hellenic and Byzantine libraries written in Greek, not Turkish, and not Arabic, and institutions that had been co-opted by the Turks, who happened to chose Islam as more suited to their military lifestyle than Christianity. Is there evidence that any of these institutions were targeted for destruction by the crusaders, rather than collateral damage? μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter who built them or why they were destroyed, the fact remains that they were. StuRat (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Or...destroyed at all, even. The Jewish library in Jerusalem (or was it Ascalon?) suffered from the initial crusader invasion, but I don't think they did much damage to Muslim institutions anywhere.Adam Bishop (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Crusaders were a minor footnote in the history of Islam; the Levant was never the center of Islamic culture during the 1000-1300 period when the Crusades were active, and they never held much territory or any significant population centers aside from Jerusalem. Islam's major cities (Alexandria, Damascus, especially Baghdad) remained out of Crusader hands. It would be like the Russians invading and capturing coastal Oregon and Washington and perhaps Seattle, and then claiming they had somehow had a hand in destroying or hastening the destruction of the U.S. The Crusaders were an annoyance at worst. The real damage to Islamic culture and learning came from the East and not the West; the Siege of Baghdad (1258) by the Mongols (already mentioned) was far more significant. That would be like the Russians nuking New York. --Jayron32 22:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Crusaders also destroyed at least one "Christian" library, the Imperial Library of Constantinople, during the Fourth Crusade. Under Destruction_of_libraries#Human_action you will find many examples of libraries destroyed for religious reasons. StuRat (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not "random fluctuation" but it's not necessarily some external factor that causes it. Take a look at the Ottoman Empire page. There's a lot going on in the world between 1299 and 1922. The Ottomans fell behind in several key areas: exploration, resource exploitation, industrialization, war-making, and empire consolidation (which is hard no matter how prosperous you are, especially at a time when ethnic nationalism was on the rise). I don't think there's any one, single, external factor that accounts for it, unless you want to count "the rise of Europe" as an external factor. (What accounts for the rise of Europe? A lot of things. Unimpeded access to the resources of the New World didn't hurt, though.) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) One thing to realize is that the Turkic peoples originally lived in Central Asia, and only migrated to Turkey around the 11th century AD. They have nothing to do with the ancient Anatolians, who lived there originally. Furthermore, the emergence of a language is not a sign of civilization. Some very 'primitive' tribes have amazingly complex languages. We don't have any preserved writing from these early periods (before c. 3000 BC); the Nature article is based on computer models, not archaeology. That's not to say that the ancient Anatolians were not a 'great people', they're just completely unrelated to modern Turkey. Regarding the Ottoman Empire, see Mr.98's comments above. - Lindert (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x4 Um, there's a big problem with the OPs question and some of the answers given. The patch of dirt currently occupied by the Turkish people was not occupied by the Turkish people 8000 years ago, or even 2000 years ago. Or even their ancestors. The ancestors of the modern Turkish people are not Indo-European people, so the fact that the people who spoke the Proto-Indo-European language may have come from there has no connection to the modern nation of Turkey. Turks come from a very different part of Asia, and migrated into the current place we call Turkey during the middle ages, long after PIE, see Turkish_people#Origins. So, if we are trying to figure out what is different between the Turkish people today and the people who lived in what we now call Turkey some 8000 years ago, it helps to note that those people aren't the ancestors of modern Turks. Secondly, the predominant explantion for the origin of PIE is that it originated in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, basically what is now the extreme southeastern corner of Europe where it meets the (somewhat arbitrary boundary) with Asia. The origins of the language in what is now Turkey is but one explanation, and does not appear to be the one held by the majority of scholars, and even if it were true, the people who live there now are not the decendants of those who lived there 8000 years ago. The article History of Anatolia has some good information on the various peoples who have called that place home. Thirdly, speaking a language that later evolves into other languages isn't really an innovation: that would imply that there was something about PIE that made it better than other languages at the time and that innovation lead to it being spread or something like that. What causes a language to spread has a lot more to do with politics and factors unrelated to the quality of the language itself. --Jayron32 14:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Jayron32 -- there was not anything approaching a complete population replacement in Anatolia after the Battle of Manzikert (1071). A number of the pre-1071 inhabitants of Anatolia were heretics or quasi-Manicheans who were not too attached to Orthodox Christianity as officially defined at Constantinople in the first place. Also, the classic Islamic missionary "Sufi bait-and-switch" was employed -- the first wave of Islamic missionaries that most ordinary people in villages would have encountered would have been itinerant Sufis, who would have promulgated a form of Islam as a joyful religion which imposed very light demands; all the Shariah legalism etc. didn't come along until a later phase... As for the Pontic-Caspian steppe, see the Kurgan Hypothesis comments below... AnonMoos (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There almost never is a "complete population replacement", and it didn't happen over night, but over time the dominant culture and the dominated population can start to assymilate. The important bit isn't how fast, or in what manner, Anatolia when from the Hellenistic sphere to the Turkish sphere, the point is that it did unquestionably did happen, and culturally and linguistically there is still more connection between the ancient Turkic peoples who lived elsewhere at the time cited (9000 BC) than with the people who lived in Anatolia at that time. The point is the land we call Turkey hasn't always (or even long, comparitively speaking) been Turkish, but rather had been of a distinct and unrelated culture until the middle ages. --Jayron32 19:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There certainly has been a dramatic cultural transformation, but you said "the people who live there now are not the decendants of those who lived there 8000 years ago" -- and even if there had been a complete population replacement after 1071, this would still be unlikely according to Most recent common ancestor mathematics, and given what actually did happen after 1071, it's not factual... By the way, from ca. 600 AD to 1071 AD, Anatolia was kind of the center of gravity of the Greek-speaking world (more so than Greece proper, which was partly overrun with Slavic-speakers). AnonMoos (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I should clarify then. The people that live there certainly have genetic ancestors that lived in Anatolia. Culturally, however, there is little trace (except a few Turkified names of older Greek origin)) of the former culture of the area. Your point about it being a Greek land from 600-1000 is very relevent to my point. It wasn't Turkish in culture in any way. Indeed, parts of Anatolia remained Greek even after the Seljuks moved in; Trebizond and Nicea were Greek for several centuries after Manzikert. However, by the time that the Ottomans became the "Old man of Europe", Anatolia had (excepting perhaps some pockets along the Ionian coast) become mostly Turkish. The point is that if one is trying to figure out what happened to the Turkish culture in Anatolia that was different than some distant point in the past, Turkish culture didn't arrive in Anatolia until the middle ages. --Jayron32 04:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well the Ottoman Empire isn't Turkey. This question makes it sound like you're asking what went wrong with Turkey today, rather than the Ottoman Empire. As for the latter, a number of reasons. Firstly, size. It was too large to be able to administer for centuries. Eventually, you got lazy kings and ineffective bureaucracies. This led to outside parts of the empire becoming their own independent territory, such as in the Balkans, or falling to another empire, such as the Safavids. Shifts in government also destablizied the kingdom, as well as new war technology in the hands of other countries. Hope it helps. --Activism1234 14:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the Ottoman Empire was Turkey. Contemporary documents frequently called it "Turkey", both internally and externally, and the modern nation of Turkey is a direct successor state to what was the Ottoman Empire. Certainly, it controlled lots of non-Turkish lands, because that is what Empires do, but as the hegemony within the Empire was Turkey, it is common and correct to think of it as the Turkish Empire. In the same way that the Austian Empire is a predecessor state to the modern country of Austia, or that the Holy Roman Empire is a predecessor state to Germany, or that the Soviet Union is a predecessor state to modern Russia, it is fine to think of the Ottoman Empire as a predecessor state to modern Turkey. The Sultans were Turks, the language of government was Turkish. It was Turkey with a bunch of dominated territories tacked on as the "empire" part. Yes, they are not identical, any more than Russia is identical to the Soviet Union, but neither are they entirely unrelated states, as though the modern nation of Turkey winked into existance in 1923 with no connection to the former Ottoman Turkish Empire. --Jayron32 14:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the question posed by the OP would've been clearer to just say the Ottoman Empire which denotes a different time period and territories than Turkey does. --Activism1234 19:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. The Turkish (as opposed to Iranian or Arabic or Maghrebi or Bulgarian or Greek) part of the Ottoman Empire, covers roughly the same extent as the modern state of Turkey, and that region and that culture dominated the Ottoman politics. There was not an equal partnership between ethnicities within the Ottoman empire. --Jayron32 19:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What went wrong with Turkey? arbitrary break #1

Wnt -- regarding one of the premises of your question, it's been noticeable for a while now that very few actual linguists support the Anatolian hypothesis, and I really don't see that dramatically changing anytime soon, despite the latest study reported in the news (a study which was not conducted by linguists, you'll note). Linguists are much more likely to be convinced by the Kurgan hypothesis (or slight modifications and elaborations of the Kurgan hypothesis). As for Turkish backwardness, such backwardness did not begin to be conspicuously visible to either Europeans or to the Ottomans themselves until after the events of 1683 (the failed Siege of Vienna) -- before 1683, the Ottomans won more than they lost. Some historians would say that the Ottomans didn't decline much at all in absolute terms, but they failed to keep pace with European developments, and so declined in relative terms. Many people in Muslim lands were somewhat contemptuous of "infidels", and didn't think there was much to be learned from non-Muslims. One warning sign was that while Europe was enthusiastically adopting the invention of printing with movable metal type, before the 18th century such printing was allowed in the Ottoman empire only if it was in a script other than Arabic, and intended for a non-Muslim readership... AnonMoos (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow - I never expected to get so many intriguingly detailed answers. Of them, the strangest is the notion that the modern-day Turkish people are of a different race (and culture?) than those living there pre-1100. There's a lot of history in these articles, so could someone do me a favor and explain how on Earth that happened? But the universal censorship described in this last one best fits my ideological preconceptions of what it would take to destroy a nation so thoroughly - can you elaborate? Wnt (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to chime in with Jayron and AnonMoos on the very weak support for the Anatolian Hypothesis among linguists. The latest study is based on a statistical analysis with suspect premises. And it has no actual tie to archeological evidence. The 9000 year date, were it true, could have occurred anywhere. There is nothing actually tying it to Anatolia. The Kurgan hypothesis matches detailed linguistic data with strong archeaological evidence. See J P Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, it is fascinating, isn't it? Basically before 1100, the territory of modern Turkey was known as Anatolia, and had been part of the Byzantine Empire, and earlier the Roman Empire, for well over a thousand years. For a few centuries before that it was largely Greek (to simplify things a bit). Some famous ancient Greeks were from there - Herodotus, and a lot of the Greek scientists/philosophers for example. Anyway, between 1000 and 1100, Turkic nomads from further east in central Asia had started moving west, pushed out of where they were previously living by other Turkic groups (including, ultimately, the Mongols). They settled in Mesopotamia and Anatolia. These were the Seljuk Turks. The Byzantines weren't altogether happy with that, but the Seljuks defeated them in a battle in 1071 and conquered most of Anatolia. They didn't completely replace the Greek population, but they ruled the territory, and their successors a few centuries later were the Ottomans. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hellenic is a much better adjective than Greek. The indigenous populations spoke Anatolian languages and Afroasiatic languages and Caucasian languages as well as the Armenian language and others before the influx of Ottoman Turkish. μηδείς (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

See Hurrian language, Hattian language, and Ugaritic language. 05:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, all of those languages had gone extinct some centuries (or in some cases millenia) before the Turks moved into Anatolia. --Jayron32 05:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps, and I suspect so as well. But your claim is based on negative evidence. The OP would do well to read the articles I have linked to. Various Indo-European Anatolian languages the family of which I have already linked to, and Hellenistic Greek, were probably current when the Altaic Turks invaded. μηδείς (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Which ones, other than Greek, were spoken in Anatolia during the centuries leading up to, and covering the time period, when the Turks moved in? Other than Armenian and the Caucasian languages along the eastern edges of what might be called Anatolia, all of the languages you cite above don't seem to be attested in Anatolia at that time: the Anatolian languages article you cite notes that they had all gone extinct quite a long time before the Turks arived, to be replaced almost completely by Greek, I also don't see any specific Afroasiatic languages listed that were extent in Anatolia during, say 100-1000 AD, excepting maybe Hewbrew used by any Jewish populations; though I suspect that most, if not all, Jewish people living in Anatolia at that time were fully Hellenized. --Jayron32 05:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

We agree there is no evidence that those languages or their descendents were actively being spoken at the time of the Ottoman invasions. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not unheard of that groups of people move from one place to another. I would compare it to Australia or North America: 500 years ago there were 'no' whites there, and now they are the majority population, having supplanted the original population. V85 (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I recognize these examples - but I'd always regarded them as a rare aberration, the result of populations coming into contact after thousands of years of separation, so that disease resistance, agriculture, metallurgy, and military technology all conspired to harm native populations of Australia and North America. For a country to be completely overrun and replaced by a neighbor it has been in contact with - well, it happens, for example in South Africa, or in the steppes of Asia, but I thought this was typical of nomadic civilizations where moving was relatively easy. For a place like Anatolia to be replaced - that's something different. Wnt (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a business in New York that's closed on weekends.

In front is a stoop, well, a couple of steps, with the chalked message "No sitting." Can I sit there? 66.108.223.179 (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't care. Wait until the business is open, then ask the owners what they think. --Jayron32 15:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like a request for legal advice, which we can't provide. For general background you might see loitering or perhaps trespassing. Wnt (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you? Probably. May you? Probably not. Should you? No. 2001:18E8:2:1020:C2:8653:9179:E109 (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I second Jayron's advice: Ask the owners what it's about. It's possible they've had trouble with loiterers, and if you stick around too long, you might get towed. You wouldn't want that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it normal for people sitting to get towed throughout the US or only in New York? Here in NZ they only do it with motorised vehicles. If it's a person sitting on the ground or steps you may be asked to move on, served with a trespass notice, or worst case scenario arrested, but never towed.... Nil Einne (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It depends on how big the person who needs to be moved is. I've seen some people that need a tow truck to move around. --Jayron32 18:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ask not whom New Yorkers tow. They'll tow thee. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

where could I email

where could I email the administrators of https://bugzilla.mozilla.org please? Thanks. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably at admin {at} mozilla.org. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What academic field studies volunteerism?

Are there any academic fields that study volunteerism? I know political science has a lot of insights on civic engagement and sociology has some on social groups, but does any field scientifically investigate things like outcomes of volunteers, reasons people volunteer, etc in a social scientific manner like causation studies? I'm sorry I cannot be more specific here.--108.23.47.101 (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right on track. Each social science is probably studying it from a different perspective: economical, sociological, psychological, and so on. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... maybe are there any interdisciplinary groupings out there then?--108.23.47.101 (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Almost certainly behavioral economics would be an important part of the stew of disciplines studying volunteerism. Certain of the more practical fields of philosophy, such as pragmatism, may also apply. --Jayron32 22:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Also in your Business and Economics Faculty: Political science (Kropotkin & Mutual Aid), Labour history (solidarity), Industrial Relations, Organisational Studies, Human Resources management. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sociology in its Form as 3rd Sector Studies. Any sector of sociology active in the realm of civil society-theory / contemporary cultural theory as well as philosophical schools around that topic (e.g. Jürgen Habermas via Gramsci for the Neo-Marxists.), political science insofar it considers civic engagement as pertinent to the object of discussion. Network theory insofar as volunteer groups may be the source of weak ties. Economics were already mentioned. Literature of interest might be: Jeffrey Alexander The Civil Sphere (Oxford University Press, 2006) Psychology I do not know wherefore I cannot attest to the involvement in volunteer studies. --Abracus (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Generally I guess social psychology, specifically the study of altruism. I've taught volunteer management and theories of volunteering, and my teaching made use of the work of Paolo Freire, Robert Putnam, Will Hutton, Anthony Giddens among others: game theory played a part too. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

OP here on a different IP. Thanks everyone. Definitely gave me some things to look into. Your help is appreciated.159.83.4.160 (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

0-bedroom housing units

I just ran across a U.S. government document from the 1970s in which HUD defined fair rents for each county in the country for different types of housing units. Each county had an entry for housing units of 0 bedrooms, 1 bedroom, 2 bedrooms, 3 bedrooms, and 4 bedrooms, with separate lines for with-elevator and without-elevator. What kind of housing unit would be defined as having 0 bedrooms? Is this just some bureaucratic designation for what everyone else would call a 1-bedroom unit? Or did HUD care about places that really weren't housing at all? 2001:18E8:2:1020:C2:8653:9179:E109 (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Part of the reason I'm confused is the idea of a 0-bedroom unit with an elevator, which would make more sense when we're talking about things that really aren't housing at all. 2001:18E8:2:1020:C2:8653:9179:E109 (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

studio apartment perhaps?--108.23.47.101 (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a studio apartment has no bedroom. You find them in major city centers. A one-bedroom in Manhattan means a closet you can sleep in with a combined living room/kitchen. A studio has a combined living room/kitchen/sleep space. μηδείς (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

In the UK, at least, it is very common for a studio apartment to be listed as "0 bedrooms", so I agree that is almost certainly what they mean. --Tango (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be a matter of definition. If a bedroom is "any room which is designed to contain a bed, among other uses", then a studio has 1, while if it's "any room which is designed primarily to contain a bed", then a studio has 0. StuRat (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Note the trendy practice of using old businesses as homes. Such a home may have an elevator to take you to your floor, which is a huge open space, with no separate bedroom. StuRat (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That's called a loft apartment in NYC. μηδείς (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

0 bedroom apartments are what we would call a "bachelor's suite" in Canada. The number usually refers to the number of separate bedrooms, something a government studying adequate housing for families might be interested in. --NellieBly (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That's rather effing sexist. Thank God I've never rented north of the Bronx. μηδείς (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how it works in other parts of the world, but the American (and UK?) system of counting the bedrooms always confuses me. In Sweden, and I assume at least some other places, you count the number of rooms. So, a studio is a one room apartment, and what you'd call a 3 bedroom apartment, we'd call a "4-roomer". /Coffeeshivers (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

We would also call a three bedroom apartment a 4-room apartment, uness it had a full living room and a full kitchen, in which case it would be a five-room apartment. What confuses you? μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Equalization Formula

Doe anyone know the exactly how fiscal capacity is calculated for the purposes of federal equalization payments in Canada? I know (50% of) actual revenues from natural resources are used. For the rest of the categories (personal income taxes, business income taxes, consumption taxes, and property taxes and miscellaneous), "fiscal capacity" is used. Fiscal capacity is defined to be the per capita revenue yield that a particular province would obtain using average tax rates. Does anyone know how this calculation is actually done? Finding the tax rate is relatively straight forward, but how is the tax base calculated? Eiad77 (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Page 40 of this document has some information, although it doesn't go into full details. This is the sort of arcane stuff which only a handful of economists at the Ministry of Finance fully understand. You may need to contact them directly to get more precise references. --Xuxl (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I was afraid of. Incidentally, that document is from before the most recent changes to the equalization formula in 2008, so it is slightly out of date. Eiad77 (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

US presidential debates

When was the last time a third candidate was included in a US presidential debate? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ross Perot in the United States presidential election, 1992. StuRat (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That was my first guess. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Also see United States presidential election debates. I'll mark this Q resolved. StuRat (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

August 28

The "treasonous act" of Georgy Malenkov

The third paragraph of Georgy Malenkov#Downfall is far from understandable, talking about a "treasonous act". It's not at all clear (and the only reference is paywalled) what this is: presumably something in the spectrum between some kind of political move and a coup attempt. As actual coup plotters don't get punished with jobs as hydro plant managers (they get jobs as bullet receptacles) I can only imagine it's something nearer the former. Does anyone here know, and crucially have legible sources, what this was, so we can fix that section's flowery hyperbole? 91.125.226.166 (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Anti-Party Group seems to be better written, the language seems more natural; I suspect the person who put the details into the Malenkov article may have not been a native English speaker. It was definately an attempted political coup or ouster, though it doesn't appear to have had the backing of the military. It doesn't look like treason, per se. It is worth noting that Kruschev was not Stalin, and his response to the Anti-Party Group crisis shows exactly how different he was. Stalin killed his close allies if they got too upity; Kruschev appears to have had little lust for blood even among those who tried to oust him. --Jayron32 01:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Correct, there is some discussion at Nikita Khrushchev, a FA. After Beria was killed, for the final four decades of the Soviet Union, if you were at or near the top and lost a power struggle, you might be sent off to manage a power station in Kazakhstan or (like K was, but he was over 70) be given an apartment and dasha and a pension and watched. Molotov was sent as ambassador to Mongolia, which knew the score and didn't terribly want him because who wants an emissary who obviously doesn't command the support of his own government?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify something I wrote; I think treason is a bad word to choose. Treason is usually reserved for crimes against the nation, not against leaders of the nation. Attempting to overthrow a leader and replace them with another leader, but maintain the same system of government isn't usually seen as treason. Treason is often seen as siding with one's external enemies against ones own government (i.e. Benedict Arnold) and usually occurs in the context of actual war. Even Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were not charged with or convicted of treason, popularly many people thought of them as traitors, but officially as the U.S. wasn't at war with the USSR, there was not legal standing to charge them with treason, but rather they were convicted of espionage. Our own article on Treason cites an authoritative source which specifically states that treason involves aiding a foreign government. What Malenkov did was more political manouvering; he didn't aid a foreign government, he didn't try to overthrow the government, he tried to overthrow a person in a position of leadership within the government, which is not the same thing. While it isn't the same country, the modern Russian law may be the closest thing I can find regarding the cultural or legal attitudes towards treason in Russia/USSR at the time, and our article at Treason#Russia uses words like "foreign power" and "external security" in defining treason. --Jayron32 12:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that in the UK, high treason could be killing a high officer of state without necessarily intending to alter the system of government. The Treason Act 1351 (repealed in 1998) says; "...if a Man slea the Chancellor, Treasurer, or the King’s Justices of the one Bench or the other, Justices in Eyre, or Justices of Assise, and all other Justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their Places, doing their Offices: And it is to be understood, that in the Cases above rehearsed, [that] ought to be judged Treason which extends to our Lord the King, and his Royal Majesty:." I'm not sure if John Bellingham, the only person to assassinate a British prime minister was tried for murder or treason, but the result was the same. Alansplodge (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Me again, it seems that Bellingham was found guilty of murder rather than treason; he was hanged and "his body anatomized"[9]. 12:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Kurds of Iran

I understand that Kurds of Iraq, Syria and Turkey want to separate but why Kurds of Iran want to separate? Their language, and culture are similar but why would they separate from Iran? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.90 (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Spanish, Portuguese, and French are all "similar" languages, but if France and Portugal suddenly divied up the Spanish territory amongst themselves, the Spanish wouldn't take too kindly to it. The Kurds are not the Iranians, and have their own culture which, while it is related to Iranian, is not the same, and some Kurds for that reason seek an independent and unified Kurdistan for all Kurds. --Jayron32 03:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The puzzle here is how the OP can understand the motives of the Iraqi, Syrian and Turkish Kurds but not the Iranian Kurds, since they are basically the same motives. I have no idea how to solve that mystery. Looie496 (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I can easily understand the OP's question in good faith but Jayron has answered it in full. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Iraninan Kurds suffer almost the same oppression and discrimination that the other Kurds do. So it's natural that they yearn for self-rule, if not total independance. --Omidinist (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

My question was meant that Kurds in Syria and Iraq are not Arabs and Kurds in Turkey are not Turks. Why would they separate from Iran? Is it because they are Sunni? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.64 (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Everyone is not somebody else, even if their ancestors spoke similar languages. The Kurds are also not Iranians, which is part of the reason why some of them don't want to be governed from Tehran. --Jayron32 17:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Which U.S. Presidential autobiographies are in the public domain (or at least free to read and save completely)?

I only found free copies of Theodore Roosevelt's, Coolidge's, and Hoover's autobiographies online so far. Also, I worked on this article List of United States Presidential autobiographies over the last month or so. Am I missing any U.S. Presidents who wrote autobiographies? Futurist110 (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant's memoirs were famous at the time, and would now be free of copyright restrictions. There's an e-text link at the end of Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

They're all free to read if you have a public library nearby. Many memoirs are likely availible at your local public library, and if not can be obtained via interlibrary loan. --Jayron32 04:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but you can't save them on a computer, unlike the earlier Presidential autobiographies that are now in the public domain. Futurist110 (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Are they availible as e-books? I did some spot checking, and there are e-books availible for the Reagan Diaries: [10] and Keeping Faith by Jimmy Carter: [11]. I regularly check out free e-books from my library on my Amazon Kindle. If your library has a similar program, it may be worth asking if they have e-book versions. You wouldn't get to keep it forever, but it would be free, and such books are usually low enough demand that you could renew them repeatedly as needed for your purposes. --Jayron32 06:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

College question

According to this then there are like 700 students that got admitted but didn't enroll. Why is that? This is probably one of the best college in a nation. Plus if 700 students didn't enroll then that means that would have an extra 700 spots that could fill in. Why don't they accept another 700 students from applicants' pool?65.128.133.237 (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where on that page you're getting your data but there are many reasons why someone might get accepted but not enroll. For instance

• Got accepted but went to another school
• Got accepted but couldn't afford to go there
• Got accepted but decided to take a year off
• Got accepted but died (let's hope that's a small portion)

And just because they didn't enroll, doesn't mean that the university didn't go to a waiting list of people and see if they then wanted to fill those empty spots. It's also possible that the university accepted more than they could handle because they were expecting some students to not enroll. I know when I started my freshman year, some dorm rooms that normally had just two occupants had to have three due to too many people enrolling. As people dropped out, the housing situation settled itself. Dismas|^(talk) 06:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

(to see the stat, look at the applying section, for some reason I can't give a direct link to it) Lol this is pretty funny how they accepted more than enough because they think there will be some portions that won't enroll. What happen if all accepted students decided to enroll? And they barely accepted people from waiting list though. They only accepted like 13, so that's 13 spots of 700 spots. Why don't they just accept just enough for the university then as students drop out or not enroll "then" they can choose from waiting list. To my understanding, this is a messy procedure.65.128.133.237 (talk) 06:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What's to say that those on the waiting list didn't accept offers from other schools, start there, and then don't want to leave the school that they're attending? It's a guessing game by the school. They have to figure out how many they can accept, guess at how many will not enroll, guess how many will drop out, etc. And there isn't just one answer for why someone would not attend. And yes, sometimes the schools guess incorrectly and have too many students for the housing and class sizes available. Then it's up to them to figure out what to do next. I've even heard of some schools putting students up in local hotels just to solve a housing crisis. Dismas|^(talk) 07:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to a news story I heard about this some time ago. Dismas|^(talk) 07:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I don't know much about how universities work in the US, but it strikes me that amongst other things, you're assuming there's only one period of admission and anyone not accepted but who may be good enough is immediately offered a position on the wait list. I don't see any reason this has to be the case, the admission period may last 2 or 3 weeks. Or perhaps some people are offered admission immediately. Either way, people who are offered admission quickly may also choose to quickly reject the admission (I presume there is a formal procedure prospective students can use of they want to do that rather then simply not enrolling) and so their positions may be offered to someone else without these people ever ending up on the formal waitlist. Of course at some stage people would be told their application has failed and a select number would be offered places on the waitlist.

As for the later issue, a waitlist is also messy. As shown by the stats, only about 70% of students even accept an offer on the waitlist which isn't surprising since as good as Stanford may be, not all students are going to want the uncertainty of a waitlist. Also while not stated on that site, I'm assuming that even if you accept a place on the waitlist, you can later withdraw or otherwise don't have to accept admission if offered. And looking at it from a purely statistical POV is probably misleading anyway, there's a fair chance those students who just miss the cutoff are more likely to reject a waitlist place then those further off because they are more likely to have better offers elsewhere etc.

Accepting more then you have available under the assumption some will drop out is fairly common practice, Overselling for example is fairly common in the travel industry. While in these cases the reasons are somewhat different (a regular 'place' is generally worth more then something on a waitlist and there isn't always a guarantee you will be able to fill all places from no shows even with a waitlist), as I don't see Stanford will ultimately have trouble filling all the places and there's no direct financial advantage, as illustrated earlier it likely gives them a better chance of accepting the best students. Also, unlike in most travel cases, worst case scenario they can likely accomodate the students at some additional cost and inconvinience. (Note that accepting students from the waitlist is likely far more complicated for the university then simply accepting students normally presuming you don't end up with too many.)

Nil Einne (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright according to my understand and let me sum it up. The reason they want to accept "more" than enough is because they tried to get the best students of those who applied. They afraid that if they don't accept them then chances are those applicants will deny the waitlist right?

P.S. Also if you look at the statistics, the reason for not relying completely on the waitlist is hardly surprising. 1,707 students enrolled out of 2,437 admitted. It's difficult to say what percentage of students admitted would have been admitted if they only accepted as many as they wanted for the reasons highlighted earlier. But even if it became say 2000 admitted and 1400 enrolled, you still have 307 or 320 or about 18% of your 1707 or so students coming through via the waitlist, a very messy process indeed.

I agree but well perhaps this is the best way to get better students. Everything has its price. So messy is a price they have to pay in this case.65.128.133.237 (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The university's goal is to fill all their places, without being significantly oversubscribed, with students of a sufficiently high caliber. They don't actually need to get the very best students - they can't really distinguish between students that precisely anyway. They will know from past experience how many people that are given offers won't end up enrolling (it won't vary too much year by year) so they can oversell quite a bit without too much risk of being oversubscribed. If they end up undersubscribed, then they use the waiting list, knowing that they will probably have to go a long way down the list in order to find people that haven't already accepted offers elsewhere. That isn't a problem though, because everyone on the waiting list is good enough not to drag down the institution's prestige (and they pay the fee, which is the important thing). --Tango (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

One additional thing: there are two numbers that have a large effect on a college/university's standings in the rankings (e.g. the US News & World Report rankings) that are affected by these numbers, and they are game-able. One is the exclusivity: what percentage of people applied did you accept? You get ranked higher if lots of people apply but you admit very little. The other is the "yield": what percentage of those accepted actually went to your school? You get ranked higher if all of those you accept go to your university. It makes for a tricky game for admissions officers — you don't want to admit people who you are pretty sure will go someone else (it's not for nothing they ask you what other schools you've applied to) or won't be able to pay for it, but you also want to be very selective about who you admit. The people I know who have worked in the admissions field at very highly-ranked universities are very ambivalent about the system — the rankings requirements can produce unusual or unpleasant results (like not letting in highly qualified people because you're sure they're going to go to a better-ranked university) if people are overly concerned about the yield. I have no references for this; this comes from discussions with numerous people who work in university admissions and is fairly common knowledge in American higher education circles. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So, if a university decides to massively encourage applications through direct marketing from everyone around the US and to accept the candidates with the poorest academic performance, but who still can pay, would that make the university raise in the rankings? OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I was accepted as an undergrad at the three colleges I applied to; obviously I only went to one. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Most Significant Event Since the Industrial Revolution Which Doesn't Involve Nuclear War

Which is the most significant event in world history since the Industrial Revolution which doesn't involve nuclear war? This is a bit of a subjective question, but have there been any articles or anything about this? Personally, I'd say the accidental crippling of the future Kaiser Wilhelm II's hand during his birth, since that led to his forceful personality, which in turn greatly helped cause WWI, which caused WWII and the Holocaust, and which caused the Cold War. Futurist110 (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Um since there hasn't ever been a nuclear war, I don't get why you need to specify 'which doesn't involve nuclear war'. Are you asking about fictional events as well as real ones? Nil Einne (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well subjectively I would say it was my birth ;-) Dmcq (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Because some events like the Cuban Missile Crisis could have caused or triggered a nuclear war if they were handled in a different way. Futurist110 (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

But the fact of an event not becoming a significant event doesn't make it a significant event. You might as well say the lack of extraterrestrial contact was the most significant event in the human species so far — think of what could have changed had it occurred! Ditto the lack of invention of time machines, the lack of a cure for all diseases, and the lack of Jesus coming back and Rapturing everyone. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Invention of the Pill. HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I would have to say the invention of the areoplane which forever chsnged warfare tactics, not to mention the means of transportation and communication.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Genetics. The problem with lists like this, though, is that nothing happens in isolation. Each invention feeds on previous discoveries. As discussed at length in James Burke's TV series' called Connections. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Computers and, in particular, the internet have changed the world enormously. We're often described as living in the "information age" now, as opposed to the "industrial age" (which started with the industrial revolution). Global politics and wars tend not to have that much impact on the world in the long-run (how much is your daily life affected by who is running the country?). Technology has a massive impact, though. --Tango (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I am old enough to remember when finding out about a subject could be a very involved task and you hoped you had a local library which was up to it, so I'm with those who say "the personal computer" and access to information through it. Wikipedia is a reflection of that. It may or may not survive in its original form, but it's too darn handy for humanity to ever throw away having a database of knowledge.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Another problem with this question is that "since the Industrial Revolution" is a bit vague: the Industrial Revolution lasted for somewhere around a century, and it's not clear whether we should include that period or not. Since earlier events have had longer to have an effect, it might be reasonable to assume that the answer is close to the start of the time period in question. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The set of related technologies that aids communication in the modern world is probably the most significant recent development. The current age is often called the "Information age", but I have heard the term "Communications Revolution" to describe it also; to mimic earlier terms like the Agricultural Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. I'd argue it wasn't computers per se that changed the world so drastically. Certainly, computers were a necessary prerequisite, and the changes would not have occured without them, but it is the way we use computers, specifically to aid in communication and sharing of knowledge and ideas, that is the revolution. When computers were used as overpriced combination calculators/typewriters/video games (pretty much all they did until the 1990s) they had a much less profound effect on the world. The two advances of the internet and the cell phone have had a profound impact on more people in a shorter period of time than the computer did without those technologies. Entire parts of the world are bypassing land line phone technology; the fact that people in underdeveloped nations are using cell phones and the connectivity they provide via the internet is simply astounding. What I have seen in my own lifetime as a result of these technologies, not necessarily for the few rich countries and their citizens, but the changes this has brought to the bulk of the world population, would mark it (IMHO) as the greatest development of the last 100 years. --Jayron32 13:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Without a doubt, penicillin. Other candidates would be modern sewage and water systems (influenced by the germ theory of disease), the invention of trinitrotoluene. Penicillin cured so many diseases though and led to our modern system of antibiotics. Today, most of our efforts in developing nations are to bring modern sewage and fresh water systems, modern medicine, and exploitation of natural resources (through blasting). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.31.81 (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Good ones as well; let me add to that vaccination. You don't need to cure diseases you don't get in the first place. Healthwise, the triumvirate of sanitation, vaccination, and antibiotics have improved life expetency unlike anything else, and they are all modern developments. --Jayron32 14:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Depending on your definitions, modern sewage systems may not be "since the industrial revolution". The London sewerage system, which I believe was one of the first modern sewerage systems, certainly of its size, was started in 1859. That's after some definitions of the industrial revolution (the first sentence of our article gives an extremely precise period of 1750 to 1850) but not if you include the Second Industrial Revolution. --Tango (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria which led to WWI which precipitated the Russian Revolution, the Fall of the Ottoman Empire, the devolution of the British Empire, the rise of Arabic nationalism, the humiliation of Germany and the partition of Austria-Hungary which led to WWII, and the Cold War and communist revolutions which resulted from the Russian Revolution leading to the Holodomor and the Cultraul revolution in which perhaps 60 million people died, as well as the Korean war, Vietnam War, the Cambodian holocaust and the rise of Saddam Hussein, as well as the Balkan wars of the late 20th century. Can't beat that. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Meh. World War I was coming whether someone shot the Archduke or not. Europe was a powderkeg waiting to explode, the spark was coming from somwhere, the specific trigger was probably ultimately insigificant in how it all went down. History would have likely been much the same had no one assassinated him, there would have been another excuse for the dominos to fall. --Jayron32 18:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

WWI might have not happened if Kaiser Wilhelm II did not have a crippled hand, since that might have led to a more stable and less reckless personality, which in turn would have made Germany's foreign policy in the pre-WWI era (1888-1914) much smarter, which would have drastically decreased the odds of another large-scale European war breaking out. Futurist110 (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So the fact that it was coming somehow makes it unimportant? Penicillin (and the airplane and everything else) was coming as well. (Unless you have access to the instant replay tape of history, which shows otherwise?) This was the pivotal moment of history since the Boston Tea Party, the beheading of Charles I, the nailing of the 92 theses, and Columbus's voyage. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It was dramatric, but history is not a series of dramatic moments, it is better understood as a series of complex and interrelated trends and movements. History doesn't exist as periods of bland, uneventful inactivity punctuated by great events. Historical forces are set in motion by large groups of people doing many different things. Social, cultural, economic, and other "mass action" forces have a far greater effect on history than singular actions and singular individuals. It doesn't mean that history is deterministic or unavoidable, or that individual events and people don't have important effects, but to declare that World War I would have not happened had the Archduke not been assassinated seems a bit over-reaching. I'd argue that the assassination was a symptom of the larger sociological events surrounding the war, namely the rise of ethnic nationalism in the old multi-national empires of Europe. That is ultimately the more important cause of the war: that oppressed ethnic groups within Europe had a growing consciousness about their own situation, and were working towards autonomy against the multinational states that oppressed them. That's the situation that caused WWI, not an assassin's bullet. I'd argue there's more weight to be given to men who expressed great ideas that changed how people think about the world, or people who invent or introduce devices that change how the world works, but catching a bullet is not in itself all that significant. The significant bit for WWI was the growth of nationalism (specifically in this case among the Slavic peoples of the Balkans against their Germanic rulers). The assasination of the Archduke was a symptom of the greater cause, not the cause of the war itself. Some of your other examples are actually better for such singular events. This one, not so much. --Jayron32 22:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me also clarify a bit. There are many events which change the course of history. There were also things which, if they were changed, could have avoided World War I. I just don't see where the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was one of those events. I'd say that if the leaders of Europe were more committed towards liberalizing their societies; if they had a greater sensitivity towards various ethnic groups; if all people within those empires were either given a real voice at the table in terms of meaningful representation or actual autonomy or soveriegnty, then World War I could have been avoided. The death of the Archduke wasn't a cause so much as a part of the War itself. He's the first casualty of the War, not really a cause of it. --Jayron32 22:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit of a subjective question, but have there been any articles or anything about this?

A bit of an understatement, since this is the quintessential subjective question. We've had a number of opinions above. The last contributor is insisting their opinion is the only correct one ("Can't beat that", "the pivotal moment"). An earlier editor said their opinion was "without a doubt" true. Whom are we to believe? Answer: None of them. Why? Because they're all opinions. What's wrong with opinions? Nothing, per se, but you came here asking for a reference to articles, you didn't want just opinions (although, to be fair, you did start proceedings off with an opinion of your own, about the Kaiser's hand).

Well, it's a vain search, I'm afraid. There are any number of places where this exact topic is discussed out there, but they're all precursors of the above, loads of people chiming in with their opinions. Simply put, you won't find any reference that proves incontrovertibly that any particular event is the most significant, or any particular person had the greatest influence on history, or whatever. You won't even find agreement about the Top 10. All we ever have on such questions is opinion, as the above litany beautifully demonstrates. A few people above gave links, but simply to better identify their opinion. Nobody has provided any links to the articles you asked for, but that's forgiveable in this case because there aren't any that don't ultimately boil down to the opinions of the authors.

Unfortunately, just because all we can find is the opinions of others does not give us carte blanche to provide a whole bagful of our own opinions. Our own Guidelines expressly forbid this.

Will I hat this entire thread now or later? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Instead of just getting random individuals' thoughts, you can always look at a poll of hundreds of random individuals' thoughts! The following is an Amerocentric thing, but it't interesting nonetheless [12]. The most common opinion seems to be "WWII", although there were only 18 events to choose from. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

When I was asking this question, I was thinking more in lines of a political perspective. However, if you'd look at it from a technological perspective then the Green Revolution, the invention of vaccinations, the discovery of electricity, and the invention of the World Wide Web would probably come out on top. I don't think that I'm forgetting any major events, but if I am, please let me know. Futurist110 (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the nascence of the Australian film industry. "World history" is a genre of writing, produced retrospectively, primarily by historians. Given the short time frame between 1850 and today; there is no consensus amongst experts. Given that "events" play a very very small role in world history compared to other processes, this question is unanswerable through expert knowledge systems (ie: truthfully) and any answer you're going to get will be populist tripe (ie: bullshit). What was the most important event in feudal Chinese history? What was the most important event in Sydney in 1842? As far as world processes go, the impacts of Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism have been palpable in the 20th century—but the chief criticism amongst professionals and scholars with the right to comment about these things, is that categories that subsume the totality are specious, as when everything is imperialism, then nothing is imperialism. The problem of claiming historical significance is the same, as soon as a process becomes significant in that it totalises, it becomes insignificant because it is the totality of all things. WWII was less an event, than what the entire world economy was doing for six plus years. Actual histories rarely stray into this territory of specious significance, and instead discuss process, causation, factors of analysis, narrativised occurrences, methods of thinking about contexts and understanding them. If you wanted me to answer from a "history from below" account, then the two most important events since the industrial revolution have been (wow) the industrial revolution: the defeminisation of high income proletarian occupations in the metropole and the feminisation of industries and occupations under imperialism. Bad question—bad answers. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed map of the United States of Greater Austria, by Popovici, 1906

• Both the "it would have happened anyway" and the "Kaiser's magic hand" theories of WWI depend on psychic ability--the ability to tell the future (the future that didn't happen!) in the first place and to read the Kaiser's mind in the second. What we do know is that the Archdukew was killed, that it was a de facto cassus belli, and that the Kaiser intentionally smuggled Lenin into Russia as a war tactic. The murdered crown prince had a plan to introduce a liberal federal minority-respecting United States of Austria Hungary, which his autocratic father would never have allowed. Instead we got a century of war. It takes no psychic and no fortune telling to see what we did get. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

nazi views on meritocracy?

--203.116.187.1 (talk) 08:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Bold text

They didn't care for it and were suspicious of experts. Many of the top people got their jobs by being old comrades of Hitler in the Party. People like Albert Speer were the exception.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it just depends on the definition of merit. Adolph's definition may have been different from yours and mine. HiLo48 (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What I think you are trying to say is that they valued loyalty perhaps more than performance. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Like most extremist political movements, the Nazis valued ideology and loyalty very high — often higher than raw talent. For the exceptionally talented there could be made some exceptions. Werner Heisenberg, for example, was not ideologically as in-line with them as they would have liked — he did not embrace so-called Aryan Physics — but his usefulness as a physicist during a time of war (esp. for work on their nuclear fission project) meant his ideological transgressions could be overlooked or even shielded. But in general, any totalitarian party is going to value ideology much higher than raw performance, and may in fact see ideology as an essential part of evaluating performance in the first place. For the exceptionally skilled there is often some maneuverability, but such are rare cases. People on the wrong side of Nazi ideology (obviously especially any of those in the non-Aryan camp) were treated poorly no matter what their talents were or were not. So in that sense, the Nazis were fairly anti-meritocratic, but they wouldn't have seen it that way themselves — they'd have said that ideology was part of merit. I don't think they took any strong explicit positions on meritocracy. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think structures of "merit" "race" "purity" and "class" in the early waffen ss could be useful here. GM Kren, LH Rappoport (1976) "The Waffen SS" Armed Forces & Society believe the waffen ss to have been meritocratic. P Biddiscombe (1999) "The End of the Freebooter Tradition: The Forgotten Freikorps Movement of 1944/45" Central European History discusses the meritocracy of the trenches in relation to late war fascists. Obviously this meritocracy is limited to Germanic Europeans or their Allies, to male land combatants, and to members of the political right (the true home of the nation). When Nation is Blood, the link is complete. The Freikorps movements claim to be meritocratic, in the sense that every person gets a bullet, but the concrete reality is a hierarchical system of class oppression, grounded in gender segregation and blood nationalism. Every German man a potential sergeant, every Junker a potential general. We can forgive our European Allies their blood—even if slavic!—as long as they don't have operational control. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I'm subsuming the entire Nazi movement behind the populist Freikorps movement and street-fighting mentality. Obviously the Junker backed coup d'etat was disconnected from the street fighting movement. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't stand if you drive?

Is the Segway the only vehicle meant to be driven in standing position? Sitting while you drive is a better idea due to the comfort or because it changes the balance of the vehicle considerably? For long distances is clear, but for city vehicles (think about using it for several stints of 15') I don't see much use for sitting while you drive. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"I'd rather be driving a Segway"

Self-propelled scissor lifts are usually operated, including moved, when the operator is standing - of course these are usually only driven tens or maybe hundreds of metres. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No matter the distance, standing is much more fatiguing than sitting. The advantage of a Segway is a quick dismount, which is probably why you see cops using them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"It's not a Segway"

The disadvantage is that you look like a raging dork; which is probably also why the cops use them. Criminals doubled over in fits of laughter are easier to apprehend. --Jayron32 13:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Old fashioned trams required the driver to stand - see picture on right. I think there was an idea that it kept the driver alert. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Stephenson's Rocket was an early steam locomotive which required the driver to stand, while it travelled at up to 28 miles per hour (45 km/h) between Liverpool and Manchester. Today some jet skis are driven standing up Gondoliers stand while operating their gondola, as did, historically, the person steering a keelboat, flatboat, or sailing ship. Edison (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In some of those cases, there could be a leverage advantage or other practical need. In small motored boats, at least in some types of them, the driver is usually seated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Old fashioned rail road handcars are driven while standing. Dismas|^(talk) 19:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, leverage. "Oh, the Camptown Ladies sing this song..."[13] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In the 1960's our milkman drove his truck standing. Quick dismount was the point as he was getting in and out of the truck a number of times per city block. There was a small seat which folded down and swung out when he wanted to sit. Zoonoses (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In the same vein, garbage trucks are often driven standing up, at least when collecting garbage on residential streets. It allows the driver to be part of the payload-handling crew. --Xuxl (talk) 08:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Also some forklifts. See the image at right. Llamabr (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Negative painting

What's the "official" term for negative painting? I'm writing an article about a North American archaeological site where pottery with such painting (e.g. they painted everything except the area that's the focus of the artwork was found), but I haven't found an article where this type of painting is covered. I've checked List of pottery terms and the ancient pottery categories, but nothing appeared to be relevant. I could link to Negative space if necessary, but I'd like to link to an article on the style of painting if possible. It won't work to link an article about other archaeological cultures' use of the technique (since that's not North American), or I'd link the Greek black-figure pottery. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Is it the handprints you see on this page if you scroll down? --TammyMoet (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Tangentially, I don't think black-figure pottery is actually an example of negative painting, as such. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

When I saw the question I went to that article, but when I saw the photographs there, I agreed with you... AnonMoos (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Tammy, I'm talking about something like the bottom image on that page, just above "George Chaloupka". Turns out that I misunderstood the black-figure pottery production process; I thought that they had a way of manufacturing black pottery and created it by painting the backgrounds in red. Nyttend (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So, red-figure pottery.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No; I thought that the pottery started black, and the painting created the red background and the details of the otherwise-black figures, such as the scales in the armor at File:Herakles Geryon Staatliche Antikensammlungen 1379.jpg. But anyway, is there a term for what truly is "negative painting", such as the handprints on Tammy's link? Nyttend (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I meant that red-figure truly is negative painting. In red-figure, the black background is painted. I tried a google books search [14] for "negative painting": the first ten results consisted of six learn-to-paint books and four books or reports about archaeological sites, so I would say yes, it's a real term. Popular in watercolor, where of course you can't paint bright figures on top of a murky ground, due to the transparency of the paint, and the need for the white paper to show through to make a figure brilliant.  Card Zero  (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

August 29

Prince of Eichstätt

The article for Eichstätt states that the principality of reverted back to Bavaria in 1855 after it had been given to Eugène de Beauharnais and his family. My questions are 1. when exactly in 1855 did this transfer occur; 2. was Eichstätt an independent state at the time or still nominally part of the Kingdom of Bavaria; and also 3. why did the transfer occur in 1855 during the time of Maximilian de Beauharnais, 3rd Duke of Leuchtenberg's son what were the reasons of it; Maximilian had already married a Russian grand duchess and moved to Russia but he died in 1852.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

1. April 21, 1855. Source. For the reason, you'll need someone who's better at German than I am. The text says: "Einigen Ersatz bot seine Erwählung zur Hauptstadt des durch Deklaration vom 15. November 1817 gebildeten, unter der Souveränetät Bayerns stehenden Fürstenthums Eichstätt, welches dem Herzoge Eugen von Leuchtenberg als Majorats-Fideicommiss um de Summe von 5 Millionen Franken zugewiesen wurde. Unterm 21. April 1855 aber kam die Stadt mit dem Fürstenthums durch Retrocession und Auflösung des Fideicommisses wieder unter unmittelbare Landeshoheit, und nimmt nunmehr mit ihren banerischen Schwesterstädten Theil an den Institutionen einer aufgeklärten, für das Landeswohl gleich mässig besorgten Regierung." The key technical terms seem to me Retrocession and Fideicommiss. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

My translation from German: Some recompense was made in picking it as main city of the Fürstentum Eichstätt, made by declaration on November 15th 1817 under the sovergeinty of the State of Bavaria, being awarded to Duke Eugen von Leuchtenberg as Majority-Fidecommis at a sum of 5 Million Francs. Meanwhile at 21st of April 1855 the city, via retrocession and dissolution of the fidecommis, the city came back into the hands of the state and participates with her bavarian sister-cities in the Institutions of an enlightened government interested equally in all of their welfare. --Abracus (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

note: Fürstentum = principality. --Xuxl (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And of course the good man was not a Duke (Herzog) but a Fürst, to name him in English: a Prince. I am sorry, but translating titles is not my specialty and I missed that one on account of the general appelation of any kind of nobility as Fürst. --Abracus (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

To be precise, a Duke of Leuchtenberg. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool; the translation answers question 2 – the Principality of Eichstatt was never independent but always came under Bavaria. Abracus, can you translate more of the source text to see if there's anything about question 3? My guess is it was because the dukes of Leuchtenberg had not actually done any ruling of Eichstatt since 1824 (the second and third dukes were minors when they succeeded) and the fourth duke who inherited in 1852 was 12 years old in 1855, had lived all his life in Russia, and was under the guardianship of his uncle Tsar Alexander. But a guess is not a source and I don't know whose idea it was to cut off the fee tail – the king of Bavaria, or the Tsar, or someone else. Another factor could be that the Dukes of Leuchtenberg had also lost their French titles in August 1853 (source), so perhaps losing the Bavarian ones too didn't seem like a big deal. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are some reasons and background in German. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Prussia in the German Empire

Why didn't the Kingdom of Prussia simply unite all of Germany into one after Austro-Prussian War?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Our article says, "In order to forestall intervention by France or Russia, Bismarck pushed King William I to make peace with the Austrians rapidly, rather than continue the war in hopes of further gains." Looie496 (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too knowledgeable on this subject, but maybe Prussia correctly anticipated that it would be able to unite all of Germany into one in several years with much less tensions than at that moment. Futurist110 (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no. My question was asking why didn't Prussia united Germany by annexing all the other German states after it defeated Austria.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The best reading for a general overview of the deeper questions surrounding German unification was the German question. In brief, after the Congress of Vienna, everyone knew that Germany would be created eventually, but there was serious debate over the role of the Habsburg lands in any unified German state. Prussia favored a solution that excluded the Habsburg lands, because the Habsburgs controlled huge swaths of non German territory: either Germany would include this non-German land (not acceptable), or you included only those parts of the Habsburg lands that were German (basically Austria), then the Habsburgs could still use the resources of their non-German lands to dominate the federation, which was ALSO unacceptable to Prussia. So Prussia sought a Germany that would exclude all Habsburg lands from a Unified Germany. The Habsburgs, of course, wanted Germany to include them as well. In many ways, the Austro-Prussian war was a strugle within the German-speaking world, and though Prussia came out victorious, that victory was not enough to convince the rest of the German states that a unified Germany under Prussian leadership, and excluding Austria, was in their best interests. The foremost roadblock was Bavaria, which like Austria was Catholic, and was generally opposed to being in single country dominated by Protestant Prussia. Bavaria and the numerous other smaller states mostly were happy to be independent, or at best involved in a customs union like the German Confederation. What it really took to encourage the Germans to form a unified state was France. When Napoleon III declared France an Empire, all the little German states got a bit panicky, remembering the LAST time a Bonaparte declared himself Emperor. The Franco-Prussian war convinced them that a) the only way that Germany would be strong enough to resist its enemies was if it was unified and b) That once Prussia defeated France that Prussia was strong enough to lead that unified state. After victory in the Franco-Prussian war, the German Empire was declared very shortly thereafter. --Jayron32 03:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sidenote: Please be aware that the German Question, at least for dewiki, refers to the question of "Deutsche Einheit" as a whole and not only during the time period of Prussian dominance and covers a time period of 1806-1990 in which the Institution of a German state and german Nationhood, as well as its pertinent territory, were repeatedly in question. --Abracus (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Main note: The German Question kept at the forefront of Central European politics for some time, and was a central issue in the rise of Nazi Germany as well. Hitler, as an Austrian, was a strong support of Greater Germany, and his early moves, including the seizure of the Sudeten and the Anschluss with Austria, were certainly part of the same philosophical differences that existed from the 19th century. You are correct that the German Question did not end with German Unification, as there were still political forces that supported the Greater Germany (including Austria) concept for some time after; when those forces got into power, they acted on their long-held plans. I think that extending the question to 1990 is a bit of a stretch; the German Question was mainly about the role of Austria in a German State; after World War II this was essentially settled permanently, the issue of a divided Germany between 1945-1990 was a different issue; first and foremost is the fact that the German Question was a North-South issue, the Iron Curtain was an East-West issue, and related to the reduction of Germany to a pawn in Cold War struggles between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. --Jayron32 14:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ex-convicts in 1880s

What would life be like for a former convict in Australia in the 1880s? Would there be a social stigma attached to them, or were they so common in Australia that it did not matter whether they had been in prison before or not? Would potential employers have access to records pertaining to former convictions? And would the ex-convict have to carry around papers signifying that they had a previous violent conviction, such as Jean Valjean did in Les Miserables? I know that's the wrong country and decade, but had things changed concerning that? Thank you for your time, it is much appreciated. Southernlegacy (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The article Constance Kent might give you some info about this. Futurist110 (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Most male ex-convicts were given bushland which they cleared for farming. Therefore most ex-convicts didn't have an employer.

When a convict was released he or she was given a ticket of leave. I don't know if this was an entry in an offical's ledger or a document kept by the ex-convict.
Sleigh (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Clearing bushland wasn't common, nor profitable. Australia's economy has always been defined by proletarian labour. Convict status, or former convict status, was a social stigma amongst the squattocracy, and considered increasingly shameful until gumleaf nationalism in the 1950s and 1960s replaced imperial self-conceptions. Connell & Irving Class Structure in Australian History. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If the bushland given to ex-convicts (for subsistence farming) wasn't cleared then the colonial government confiscated it.
Sleigh (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to read up on the so called squatocracy and the distribution of land in Australia. Noel Butlin did some excellent work on the pastoral industry. You might also want to read Connell and Irving who specifically discuss the dispute over "closer settlement" and the ownership of land. I assure you that the land provided to ticket of leave men was on the whole garbage not worth clearing. Profits in Australia have been made by supplying credit to farmers who proceed to bankrupt themselves in the interests of large landowners and bankers. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This site says "Ticket of Leave holders had to keep their ticket on their person at all times and present it to a constable if requested. Tinsmiths made slim waterproof tins to hold Tickets of Leave. Ticket of Leave holders also had to attend the annual ticket of leave muster or forfeit their ticket." So it seems to have been a portable document rather than an entry in a ledger, and imperative to carry it and keep it safe. If a ticket-of-leave holder wanted to work in, or travel to, an area not covered by their ticket s/he had to get written permission: there are images of these "ticket-of-leave passports" online to look at which give the holder's name, details of their arrival including ship, and length of sentence, and details of what movement the passport permitted, but they don't seem to specify the actual crime committed. Ticket-of-leave was only a kind of parole; when convicts had completed their whole sentence they received a Certificate of Freedom. No idea whether they had to carry that around, but it would certainly prove their status if challenged. - Karenjc 09:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Iran, its nuclear program, and a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East

How come Iran says that it will end its nuclear program once Israel agrees to a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in the Middle East yet refuses to end its program right now? I don't get Iran's logic in refusing to end its nuclear (weapons) program right now if it is willing to give it up eventually and if more sanctions will be put on Iran in the meantime, which could threaten the security of the Iranian regime from an internal revolution if things in Iran get bad enough due to the sanctions. I know that the Iranian regime hates Israel, but Israel has already promised to disarm after getting a peace treaty signed, so why put your nuclear weapons program as a bargaining chip (for Iran) to get something (Israeli nuclear disarmament) which will eventually happen later on anyway? Can someone please shed some light on this issue? Futurist110 (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, where has Iran said that??

Secondly, if Iran did say that, it would make sense - it's a demand that won't be fulfilled, but in the meantime they can pretend there's an excuse to their nuclear program. They don't need to worry about the demand being fulfilled, as it won't be. If Iran ended its nuclear program, on the other hand, then that would very likely accelerate the possibility of a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East (you need to understand Israel's security concerns, which hasn't been invaded for over 30 years since claims emerged that it built nuclear weapons. A nuclear-free Middle East would require peace in the region, which would be very tough, and that would also be impossible for Iran. Otherwise, a nuclear-free zone may very well be suicidal). The fact they said that doesn't indicate anything about ending the nuclear program.

If Iran was serious that its nuclear program was peaceful, it would've allowed IAEA officials months ago to visit the site at Parchin, instead of hiding buildings and covering it up with pink tarp, as ISIS uncovered. But I digress, that's not part of the OP's original question.

In short - Iran is saying that because the demand won't be fulfilled. But saying that doesn't indicate a willingness to abandon nuclear program, even if the demand was fulfilled.

Hope it helps. --Activism1234 02:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So basically it's a strategy that they use to try shifting the blame on Iran's continuing nuclear program on Israel (and the West, for not pressuring Israel enough)? That would make sense, since Iran hates Israel. Also, I am aware that Iran probably has a nuclear weapons program, since it if had nothing to hide, I seriously doubt that Iran would be willing to keep on getting hit with sanctions by the West. (Saddam and his alleged WMD and nuclear program was a separate and unique case and more of an exception to the rule than the rule.)

As for sources about Iran saying this, here you go:

• http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/26/world/la-fg-iran-non-aligned-20120827
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4756652.stm
• http://old.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=185704

However, I do want to point out that I'm much more optimistic on Middle East peace than you are over the next 10 years, so if Iran keeps sticking to this demand it could screw itself over later on. Futurist110 (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh no no no, I know about those refs you provided. Reading them carefully, Iran isn't saying "We want a nuclear free zone in Middle East, then we'll give up our nuclear program." That wouldn't make sense. It'd essentially be a confession "Yeah, our nuclear program isn't peaceful, which is why we're not willing to give it up now." After all, if it's only for civilian needs, what does one have to do with the other? The call Iran is making is just in general for a nuclear-free weapon zone. This tactic is for a similar, but different, reason - "We want a nuclear free weapon zone, and people (especially governments) never lie, so this obviously is direct proof our nuclear program doesn't have a malicious side to it." It's essentially to reinforce that their nuclear program is peaceful, regardless of whether it really is.

It's like when terrorist organizations deny responsibility for an attack, saying that they would "never harm civilians" (a statement the Taliban made just a few days ago) or citing "humanitarian concern." If they care about humanitarian concerns, how can they be a terrorist organization?

Hope that helps. --Activism1234 04:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Two major points here buttress your entire question:

1. Iran will end its nuclear program if a NFZ is enacted in the Middle East.
2. Israel will also disarm its nuclear weapons program if a NFZ is enacted.

Both are entirely misrepresentations or misunderstandings. Since neither Iran nor Israel acknowledge having non-peaceful nuclear programs, they certainly aren't setting terms on when they'd be stopping or disarming them!

A separate claim that you make is that sanctions threaten the internal security of the regime. That is just not the case. No regime has even been taken down from within or from the outside because of sanctions. Historically, across the board, sanctions allow authoritarian governments to shore up their political base, given the common people a common external enemy, and lock countries into exactly the paths that the sanctions are meant to be preventing. It's not terribly surprising that many analysts argue that sanctions are worse than ineffective at their goals, but counter-productive. They are an "easy" thing for a country like the US to do — a form of warfare that doesn't involve actual troops — but I doubt the Iranian government feels threatened because of them. In the specific case of Iran, anything that involves oil sanctions drives up the cost of oil — which hurts the US far more than it does Iran. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Separately, you might ask yourself, why wouldn't Iran close down shop immediately if it thought that Israel would do the same with its nuclear program? The answer is fairly obvious: Iran doesn't think Israel would do such a thing and has no reason to think such a thing. Even if Israel shut down everything first, it's not obvious that it would be in Iran's interest to also shut down their program, but that situation just isn't going to happen. A grand total of one nation (South Africa) has ever truly given up the bomb once acquired, and that was for extremely local and unusual reasons (it happened just before the total end of the Apartheid regime). Even if Israel proclaimed tomorrow that it had dismantled all of its nuclear warheads, why would Iran believe them? It would require such a momentous shift in policy — signing the NPT, opening up to full international inspections, accounting for all prior nuclear work — that would take years to sort out. It's not even really worth considering as a plausible option at this point, given Israel's stance on things. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Until or if Iran disavows its intention to destroy Israel, there's no chance they would disarm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

In male dominated times, places and cultures how do we explain the presence of Queens?

Obviously gender equality has come a long way in the last hundred years (and we have further to go) but even many hundreds of years ago we had female rulers. Even in times when it was seen as vital to have a male heir women could ascend to the throne.

Why was this? Why didn't such male dominated cultures simply reject the rule of women? Why was a system not set up to bypass female claims to power? For the removal of doubt, I don't ask this because I feel that would have been the right thing to do, I most certainly do not. It's simply that I don't understand how a Queen could exist in cultures where women were otherwise deprived of rights and empowerment. --bodnotbod (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Assuming your premise, a Queen's male relatives who cannot themselves ascend the throne have a strong incentive to rule indirectly through her. Power politics trumps gender ideology. Queen Elizabeth I seems to have played the men around her off each other quite well. I am sure others can mention more such cases. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In the converse, in countries where females could not rule in name, they often ruled in fact if not in name, acting as the Éminence grise or power behind the throne. In france, for example, there were several women who held great power despite not being Queen Regnant; I think particularly of Catherine de' Medici. --Jayron32 05:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There also was a system set up to bypass female claims to power, Salic law. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In 16th-century England, following the death of young King Edward VI, the claimants to the throne were exclusively female. One of these - Lady Jane Grey - was deliberately chosen to replace Edward's half-sister Mary I. As another editor has mentioned, the husband of a female monarch was expected to take the reigns of power for himself, hence Elizabeth I's refusal to remain unmarried.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There are and always have been multiple vectors of inequality, and the most powerful one has always been class or status. The person holding the power may be male, but the women of his family and circle of friends will share the benefits of that far more than other men with no connection to the ruler, and will be quite happy to use as cannon fodder. A ruling class, no matter how male-dominated, will usually see a woman of their class as a better bet than a man from outside their class. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the prime objective in sticking to the laws of primogeniture was to avoid civil war as it was highly unlikely that a man born outside the nobility would ever be able to wrest the crown away from a legitimate female heir. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it's more stable to have it descend through female as well as male heirs, and given that a king may only have female children, that way you don't have him messing with the system, but content that the crown will descend in his line, rather than a collateral one. Jeanne, could you re-read your post of 07:23?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that last statement bamboozled me, too. It seems to be the exact opposite of Elizabeth's historical position. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Jeanne means her determination, not refusal, to remain unmarried. Sussexonian (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Yes I had meant to say her refusal to marry. The fact that I made the edit at 7.23 says it all (no morning expresso, tea, pasty, etc.)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

For the English monarchy, the outcome of the 12th-century Stephen-Matilda wars established that the crown could descend through a woman, while the events of the mid-16th century established that the crown could descend to a woman herself. However, a number of other European monarchies rejected such possibilities into the 20th century. One famous rejection of all woman rulers was The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstruous Regiment of Women, but its author was probably wishing that he been a little less vehement and categorical less than two years after its publication... AnonMoos (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that Queen Victoria was unable to become Elector of Hanover, but would have done if she had been a boy. Alansplodge (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

She was also unable to become Elector of Hanover as that position had been abolished some decades before she was born. She was unable to become King of Hanover because the laws of Hanover prevented females from inheriting. --Jayron32 14:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite right - I stand corrected (but " George III's government did not consider the dissolution to be final, and he continued to be styled "Elector of Hanover" down to 1814." - 5 years before Victoria was born). Alansplodge (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

While Hanover had been useful to the British from time to time, it also served, in this case, to get the Duke of Cumberland out of England, where he had been a pain in the royal arse for the past forty years.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that the rival parties in the Wars of the Roses based their claims on whether or not precedence should be given to descent through the female line of the second son of Edward III (Lionel of Antwerp) or descent through the male offspring of the third son (John of Gaunt).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If 3 Wikipedia Articles all say the same thing on a claim.

If 3 Wikipedia Articles all say the same thing. On history like. Greek mythology. Should I trust them. I read Three wikipedia pages. That Zeus returned the Cyclopes from Hades. After Apollo killed them. 2 of the page creator's could not tell me where they got the information from. Because they didnt remember. 3 Greek mythology experts. Told me they have never read it. One was a German Greek mythology college teacher. The two other's are website creator's on Greek mythology. They say they know nothing of Zeus returning the soul's of the Cyclopes from Hades. What am I suppost to believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.228.62 (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

An abstract number count really doesn't mean anything in itself. If you have deep questions about an obscure sub-facet of something, then could do your own research on it... AnonMoos (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You can only trust Wikipedia as much as you can trust its sources. If you have reason to doubt what Wikipedia says, check the original sources. --Jayron32 19:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia sources on history come from published books.

Does Wikipedia sources on history come from published books. Or internet site's. Or could some information be a lie. And if so how long does it take to get seen. And changed. Another thing I dont want a politcaly corret answear. I want a staright forward and most likely true answear. If three articles on history or Greek mythology say the same thing. However a lot of people disgree or dont know. With what was said. If three Wikipedia writer's say the same thing. Did they all get it from a book thats published. Because I cant find the information on the internet. Only 1 website on Greek mythology said what Wikipedia said. And that site is not on the internet anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.228.62 (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The answer to your questions are, in order: Yes, Yes, Yes, until someone notices, until they care enough to change it. The answer is always, if you doubt something at Wikipedia, you should check the original sources it comes from. If you find that something at Wikipedia misrepresents what the original source says, or is contradicted by other sources, you are invited to fix it. --Jayron32 20:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Jayron32 answers this above. For the appropriate standard, see WP:HISTRS. You're sweet out of luck if the "true" answer is the "politically correct" answer. Wikipedia bases its system of truth on what experts agree upon, and indicating where experts disagree, and if no experts are available on what higher quality reliable sources agree upon, and indicating where these disagree. Such a system records what experts or high quality sources believe to be true—not what is actually true. For actual truth I suggest that you start communing directly with a Spinozan God. You should be able to "trace the antecedents" of the article, by looking at the sources the article uses. Then you can judge for yourself whether you believe the article is true. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC) *

Anyone who mentions the Spinozan God gets a star. It always strikes me as odd that people think Wikipedia is less reliable than any other source. You always have to verify everything, as 99% of academia and the media is полно говно. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This is actually a very specific question that this poster has been asking constantly, about Zeus and Apollo and the Cyclopes, in which case he may be right that somebody just made something up and put it on Wikipedia. But we can't really do anything about that on the Reference Desk. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually let me try again...we've been trying to answer the earlier questions but maybe we haven't been clear. Hesiod's Theogony says that Zeus released the original three Cyclopes from Tartarus, and they helped him defeat Cronus by forging his thunderbolts. Apollodorus says that Zeus killed Apollo's son Asclepius with a thunderbolt, so in revenge, Apollo killed the Cyclopes (or possibly, their sons) who made the thunderbolts. This story is also told in the play Alcestis by Euripides. Our Cyclops article says that in the play, Zeus resurrected them and Asclepius from Hades, but the play doesn't actually say that, as far as I can tell. He did bring back Asclepius, and turned him into a constellation, but there is no mention of the dead Cyclopes. This text was added to our article by User:GoldDragon in 2008 (in this edit). GoldDragon has been banned as a sockpuppet, so we can't ask him to explain, but he probably just made a mistake (or he made it up). I have removed the incorrect sentence. 24.12.228.62, does this answer your concerns? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Where (other than our article) are you finding that "Hesiod's Theogony says that Zeus released the original three Cyclopes from Tartarus, and they helped him defeat Cronus"? In one of the previous threads, I pointed out that I examined the Theogony and found no statement of either of those "events". Deor (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It's around line 500 of the Theogony, in Evelyn-White's translation (on Perseus): "And he [Zeus] set free from their deadly bonds the brothers of his father, sons of Heaven whom his father in his foolishness had bound. And they remembered to be grateful to him for his kindness, and gave him thunder and the glowing thunderbolt and lightning". Adam Bishop (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology points to "Apollod. i. 1; Hes. Theog. 503" for that. For Apollodorus it is 1.2.1 of the Library (Frazer's translation on Perseus): "They fought for ten years, and Earth prophesied victory to Zeus if he should have as allies those who had been hurled down to Tartarus. So he slew their jailoress Campe, and loosed their bonds. And the Cyclopes then gave Zeus thunder and lightning and a thunderbolt, and on Pluto they bestowed a helmet and on Poseidon a trident." Adam Bishop (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Gaius Julius Hyginus

Hello, all. What was Hyginus' ethnic and/or cultural background? Was he Celtic, Greek, Roman, Punic or something else entirely? Much obliged, Van Gulik (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

According to our article, at least, he was born either in Spain or Alexandria. The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology notes that Suetonius says he was born in Spain, not Alexandria, as other authors had written before him. Presumably there is more recent scholarship on the subject, but I don't know anything about that. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that I look a bit more, it seems a bit complicated because there may be more than one Hyginus, or later works were attributed to him. But apparently the consensus is that Hyginus the freed slave of Augustus was Spanish. See Lorne D. Bruce, "The Procurator Bibliothecarum at Rome", Journal of Library History 18 (1983), p. 150. The expert on Hyginus, cited by Bruce, seems to be P. van de Woestyne, but I've been unable to access the article which probably discusses his origin, "Un ami d'Ovide, C. Iulius Hyginus", Musée Belge: Revue de Philologie Classique 33 (1929). But since that is what Bruce is citing, I'm sure van de Woestyne also says he was Spanish. Our article mentions Alexandria because it's from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, which evidently got it from Suetonius, even though he said it was incorrect. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does make most sense that he'd be in Spain. Thank you!Van Gulik (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Accidental Kidney Donation

I was wondering what happens in various developed countries if a hospital accidentally removes someone's kidney and gives it to someone else who needs it, and then the first person wants his/her kidney back? Would the law allow the first individual to reclaim his/her kidney from the second person even if this might cause the second person to die? This is a completely serious question, by the way. Futurist110 (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't see that ever happening... you do get mistakes in surgery, but it would take a pretty incredible sequence of events for them to accidentally transplant a kidney from someone. It would have to be that they switched the patients and operated on the wrong one, I guess. If that happened, there is a good chance the kidney wouldn't be a tissue match and it would have to be removed from the recipient anyway (if it's too bad a match, it could cause the recipient to go into severe shock (with something similar to acute hemolytic transfusion reaction). Whether it could be returned to the donor, I'm not sure - probably not. The damage that would have been done to it during the transplant, while in the recipient's body from their immune system, and then during the second transplant would probably be too severe to make it worth the risks of the surgery. This is no evidence that you are really any worse off with only one kidney (I'm not sure they would do live donations of kidneys if there were), but there are plenty of known risks with major surgery. Even if it were medically advisable, I can't see how the recipient could be forced to have further surgery - you need consent to operate on someone. --Tango (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Something similar did in fact happen here in Denmark very recently: http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/samfund/article1814336.ece. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oddly, we don't have an article on legal redress. Basically you can sue for (normally monetary) compensation for the damages done you, as well as punitive damages. Presumably you would ask for well beyond the cost of the surgery to have the kidney restored, and the judge would have a hard decision as to how to get you to the top of the recipient list, if he could do so. But that isn't going to entitle you to an eye for an eye, or to seize your kidney back from an innocent third party. See also, The Merchant of Venice. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Problem and solution creation? in politics and business

Hello,

I know a strategy used by businesses and politicians throughout history is they create a problem, then pretend to offer the solution to the very problem they created. What is the term for this strategy? Thanks!--Colonel House (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Edward Roderick Davies

The Edward Roderick Davies article says, Davies immigrated to the United States with his father David Davies who had black lung disease and had been injured in a mining accident. David worked at a Ford plant and paid for his wife, Annie Davies, and son, Edward, to come thereafter. So when did Edward come to the United States? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The article you linked states 1929. --Jayron32 00:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

And then it says "Edward came thereafter". 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It says "In 1929 Davies immigrated..." Presumably, the "thereafter" happened in 1929. The unanswered question is when his father arived, presumably sometime in the herebefore 1929. --Jayron32 00:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

But it says he immigrated with his father. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that is confusing. What do the sources say? --Jayron32 03:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It's from the Telegraph source which is also vague on the father's immigration date: Ann Romney's "grandfather, David Davies, emigrated to the US in the 1920s after being crushed in a mining accident. He did whatever work he could find to pay for his family to join him. His wife, daughter and three sons – one of them 15-year-old Edward Roderick “Rod” Davies, future father of Mrs Romney – arrived in 1929, just as Wall Street crashed and the Great Depression struck." 184.147.128.34 (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Daily Mail version says David Davies "'took the bold and brave decision to move to the U.S. in 1929 and soon earned enough money to pay for his wife Annie and son Edward to join him, despite their initial reluctance to leave Wales behind." and in a caption: "Ann Romney's grandfather David Davies, pictured here with his son Leslie, emigrated to the U.S. from Wales in 1929 after falling on hard times due to an industrial accident" 184.147.128.34 (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

However, the BBC quotes Ann Romney directly: "When he was 15, Dad came to America." If the 1930 birthdate in the article is correct, he can't have emigrated in 1929. The BBC piece later says: "Mrs Romney 's grandfather was David Davies, a miner who emigrated to the USA in the 1920s. Mr Davies worked at Coegnant Colliery before moving to Detroit in 1929 to work in the car industry. He was later joined by his wife, Annie, and his son, Edward, who was Mrs Romney's father."

NB, the Telegraph article is dated Jan 6, the Daily Mail Aug 6 and the BBC Aug 29. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

August 30

Raymond of Cabannis and Philippa the Catanian

Recently while reading Nancy Goldstone's biography on Queen Joan I of Naples, I came upon this unusual couple. Raymond of Cabannis was a former Ethopian slave who rose to become Grand Seneschal of the kingdom of Naples and his wife Philippa was a Sicilian laundress who was appointed governess to Queen Joan when she lost her mother as a child. I have searched the Internet to discover more about these people but to no avail. They had four children who married into the Neapolitan aristocracy but apart from this fact I have not been able to find out anything else about them. Would anybody happen to have more information on the Cabannis family? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a decent amount online about Raimondo de Cabanni and Filippia da Catania (Filippa la Catanese) but it's all in Italian.--Cam (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Cultural influences on relationships

What is causing young people to have relationships these days through peer pressure ? Is it cultural, media? 176.250.252.78 (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? What sorts of relationships? Sexual, friendships, aquaintences? --Jayron32 13:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Girlfriend/boyfriend sort of relationships. 176.250.252.78 (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Young people have been forming girlfriend-boyfriend relationships for a long time. It didn't just start "these days". The Wikipedia articles titled Dating and Courtship have a wealth of information. --Jayron32 15:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

What country or area are you looking at? What evidence do you have to suggest that young people are doing this more than at other times? What evidence do you have to suggest that peer pressure is a factor in their decision-making? If you can answer these questions (which are implied by your first question), you may find you already have the answer to your second question. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The OP's IP address geolocates to London. --Jayron32 16:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it true that the Columbine massacre took place during the Clinton firearms ban

clearly trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you. Nienk (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Assuming you mean the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, yes. That law went into effect in 1994, and expired in 2004. The Columbine High School massacre occured in 1999. --Jayron32 15:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Clearly, it didn't work then. Nienk (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC) By that logic, the law against murder doesn't work either. It should come as no surprise that criminals commit crimes; it's clear from our article about Columbine that the perpetrators committed several firearms offences prior to beginning their attack. However, it is not immediately clear from the articles, and I am not sufficiently conversant with firearms to judge for myself, whether the FAWB was one of the firearms laws that the perpetrators of Columbine broke. That ban appears to regulate primarily semi-automatic long guns, while the Columbine killers were armed with shotguns, handguns, and one non-automatic rifle. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC) So as a follow-up, Nienk, was your question and riposte an entry for some troll-of-the-week contest we've yet to be alerted to? --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I don't understand your point. Nienk (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC) The point is this is a reference desk, not a forum. You asked a specific question, and we answered it. If you want to debate gun control, do it somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Okay, I'm not interested in gun control in the United States, I'm fine enough with my weapons at the Israeli Defense Forces. Nienk (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC) (ec) The question and riposte read like a set-up to criticise the law in question; yet the example you employed involved the use of weapons not covered by the law ... the whole thing reads as though pitched by a pitiful republican/NRA troll type. Would you like to take this opportunity to clarify or withdraw your riposte? --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Taghishsimon, it may be of interest to you that Nienk's talk page includes a reprimand for uploading an apparently non-free image of one of the Columbine shooters. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, I'm quite interested in the case, they are hot as well. Nienk (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Based on that last comment, I am convinced you aren't here for honest reasons. It is too bad, because your initial question was quite a good one, but your continuation down to that last comment clearly indicates you're just here to stir up trouble. I'm closing this down. Have your fun elsewhere. --Jayron32 16:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Wish you were a Palestinian. Bye. Nienk (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)