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

September 6

Genre painter "Aimé Dalleizette" of Switzerland.

The second version (1980. First, and significantly different, was 1978.) of the very obscure science documentary film "Target...Earth?" includes, among other things, gentle spoofs of a number of old genre paintings. Over the last 45 years or so, I've seen at least four, in books and magazines, but of course had no need, at those times, to pay close attention. After much trouble, I recovered the name of one of the painters, Aimé Dalleizette, who has an entry in Benezit, but none in Wikipedia, and neither does the movie have an entry here. I am requesting that knowledgeable, well-placed persons correct these lacunae in Wikipedia.C.s.auaeginal (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Google books turns up a little bit. This book here: [1] has a brief biographical sketch in French. As does this one. These are all really short, all saying basically the same thing "A Geneva-born Swiss genre painter born in 1799" and not much else. Here is the google books search I used to find the above. I can't find much else besides that. Probably not enough to hang a Wikipedia article on. --Jayron32 03:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Grass hula skirts

When was the grass skirt introduced to Hawaiian hula? Traditional Hawaiian hula dancer wore kapa dresses, I remember reading somewhere that it was introduced from Tahiti or another island in the modern era.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

These two sources[2][3] claim it was first seen (along with the ukulele) when King Kalākaua revived the hula in the 1870s. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a link between no photography policies and freedom of panorama (or lack thereof)?

Hope this isn't asking for legal advice, as I'm just asking for general observations. Here in the Philippines, we currently don't have any freedom of panorama provisions in our copyright laws. I've also noticed that here, many museums prohibit photography, usually for security reasons, but also for either copyright reasons or preservation (but if the latter is the reason, can't they just ban flash photography?) Even concerts and theater shows (like the Saltimbanco show that came last month) frequently have the same policies. Are countries which don't have freedom of panorama provisions more likely to have places which prohibit photography, or is this just a coincidence? And a related question: aside from Area 51, what are notable examples of places where photography is prohibited but the reason is officially a state/company/trade secret? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama really has to do with buildings and public sculpture. They probably figure they get no benefit from private pictures of their collection out there on the web. As for concerts, in my (extensive) experience, what they usually care about is filming, and only some places get hyper about it, because you're not going to have a good film unless you are in the photo pit with a quality camera (a tripod would be helpful), and no one is slamming your back in time to the music. Thus, if you would like a photo pass, they usually limit you to the first three songs and no more than 30 seconds of video.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

In the United States, all security sites have restrictions on photography. It's actually enshrined in one of our toughest laws — the Espionage Act of 1917. In general, though, it is worth drawing a distinction between legal restrictions and private restrictions on photography. I can put a sign on the door of my house that says "NO PHOTOGRAPHY." What can I do if you violate it? I can kick you out of my house. I can't put you in jail or sue you. It has as much legal force as me saying, "please take off your shoes before stepping on the carpet." The "NO PHOTOGRAPHY" signs on security sites in the US are not private restrictions — they are legal ones (they can put you in jail). The "NO PHOTOGRAPHY" signs in museums or concerts are private ones, not legal ones — it's not actually against the law for you to take photographs in those places, but they can probably kick you out if you do it. (What you then later DO with the photographs you've taken may or may not be against the law — in terms of copyright violations — but that's a separate question from just taking the photograph in the first place, and depends on the copyright laws in question.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Museums have photo restrictions, possibly not so much due to concerns over copyright as due to wanting you to spend lots of money in their gift shop. If you can take pictures of all the art they are exhibiting, why would you buy the postcards or posters of that same artwork? I recall that when I visited the Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion last year, the guide made a big deal out of their 'no photo' policy, and specified that it was to prevent professional photographers coming in on the tour and selling their pictures afterwards. They were, however, open to organising specific photo shoots - indicating that the motive for the policy was economic (you'd probably have to pay for the photo shoot) and didn't have anything to do with preserving the art or protecting the copyright of what was on display. V85 (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue of copyrights in museums can be tricky. If it's old art, then the copyright is expired — so if you take a good photo of the Mona Lisa, you can do whatever you want with it, and the museum can't do anything about it. The museum doesn't want that, obviously — part of the perk of having an old master is getting money from people who want copies of it. (In the US, it doesn't really matter, because even the museum's photographs of paintings are in the public domain.) So copyright is related to the motivation, but not so much that taking a photograph violates copyright. Saying it is about control, generally speaking, from an economic standpoint, is probably more on par. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Can't the U.S. send drones to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities?

I see a war approaching and the first thing that comes to my mind is acting before it's too late. Wouldn't that be a solution? Can drones be sent without trouble to countries like Iran? Thank you. Mark. Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The physical possibility of committing any action is rarely the barrier to a country committing it. For example, I am capable of punching a random police officer in the face. It would be outrageously stupid of me to do so; the thing keeping me from punching a cop in the face is not that I am physically unable to make my fist make contact with his face. That is, the U.S. could actually do as you describe, but for several fairly obvious reasons, it may not be a great idea to do so. The U.S. is known to use drone strikes in other nations with which it is not in a state of war, such as Pakistan and Yemen. However, Pakistan has a government which is generally friendly to the U.S., and so (after a public display of being outraged) tends to overlook such incursions, as does Yemen to some extent. With Iran, with a government that is publicly hostile to the U.S., such an action would have a terrible effect on the U.S. standing in the world, and could likely spark reprocussions that would make it a bad idea. Part of what allows a country like the U.S. to do such things is they have a sort of "moral currency" built up, both with the target country and with the international community. Attacking Iran unilaterally as you describe would cause serious damage to that, and for that reason, plus the fact that domestically the U.S. population has little interest in getting involved in yet another protacted ground war in Asia, which would likely result from your proposal, means that it isn't going to happen. --Jayron32 13:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Drones don't help too much in destroying things buried deep underground... AnonMoos (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, they would if you strapped a hydrogen bomb to one... --Jayron32 13:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Among other counterfactual hypotheticals. AnonMoos (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Even then, I'm unsure. For very deep facilities you need a bomb that will penetrate significantly before exploding — even H-bombs. Could a B61 be dropped by a drone from a significant enough height to have the correct amount of penetration? I'm honestly just not sure. It's probably not what any drone currently available is designed to do. Again, this is kind of silly, because if we wanted to drop B61s on Iran, we'd just use B-2s or some such, not drones. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the best way to avoid a war is to avoid committing acts of war. Bombing Iran would be an act of war. So, frankly, your idea is terrible and counterproductive. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The United States has the military capability to hit sites in Iran. This is not controversial. They have the military capability to drop very large (conventional or nuclear) bombs pretty much anywhere on the planet, and have had that capability for decades and decades.

The controversial questions are:

1. Does Israel have this ability, without US help? (Probably not. Israeli air capabilities are not as advanced, and getting from Israel to Iran requires going over the territory of a lot of other nations who may not be so happy about this sort of activity, plus Iran has a reasonably sophisticated series of air defenses of its own. This is significant because a lot of the debates are along the lines of, if Israel tries to attack Iran, will the US have to bail them out?)
2. Does the US have the ability to penetrate deeply into Iranian underground sites? (Depends on who you ask. Some military guys say yes, no problem. Others say it would be difficult, presuming you're not talking about dropping "bunker busting" nuclear weapons on them. I'm unsure but I doubt that drones could be used for this purpose; you probably need something larger to drop the really deep-penetrating bombs. If you are thinking about using nuclear weapons, that introduces lots of other considerations. It isn't very likely, for obvious P.R. reasons.)
3. What happens after you bomb Iranian facilities? Nobody knows. Most people think that Iran will retaliate against Israel (either directly or through its proxy, Hezbollah), that they will withdraw from the NPT (thus ending all inspections), and that they will engage in a crash program to develop a nuclear deterrent. The only way to avert this would then be a war of "regime change," which would be exceedingly costly on all sides and could lead to wider outbreak of war in the Middle East, and might not even be successful. The other position — that Iran will just give up on nuclear things — is not held by very many people, though they would point to Israel's bombing of the Osirak reactor as the template here. Even that didn't stop Saddam's nuclear ambitions — in fact, he intensified his program. He shelved the ambitions only after the 1991 Gulf War. But it may have delayed him to that point.

So these are the really tricky issues. These are separate from the question of whether Iran is actually trying to make a nuclear weapon, which itself is controversial (most analysts, including the US intelligence community — see NIE 2007 — think that this is a long-term goal of theirs, but not something they are trying to do in the next few years — that they want to be nuclear capable, not nuclear armed), or whether Iran having a bomb would necessarily be a bad thing (lots of folks argue that nuclear weapons tend to stabilize regions, rather than destabilize them, but making guesses about this requires guessing Iranian intentions and also the reactions of other states in the region, all of which are hard things to gauge). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Just remember everyone that there is another issue involved here. Russia. Russia would be outraged by a U.S. intervention in Iran, and it would risk starting another Cold War with them perhaps if we were to do so. That's the biggest practical issue that I can think of that hasn't already been brought up. Rabuve (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Mostly because relationships with Russia are frosty enough, but neither Russia nor the USA think one another plans to nuke each other anytime soon. Another Cold War — where both superpowers thought that they were in an existential crisis with regards to one another — isn't very likely. (Russia knows that US or Israeli interest in Iran has nothing to do with trying to hurt Russia. The worst accusations on those front are that US plans for missile defense — now fairly scaled back — might also be aimed at Russia while ostensibly being about Iran, but again, that's only a minor part of the whole Iran situation.) Frosty relations, sure. But they're already frosty, and frostiness is not the same thing as a Cold War. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

But Russia certainly won't like the possibility of the United States possibly expanding its sphere of influence in the region around central Asia. I don't think the conflict would be nuclear, but neither do I think the Russians would just accept it. Rabuve (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think most analysts think that the Russians would just accept it, practically speaking. What are you suspecting they'd do, start a war? I don't see it. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

And, practically speaking, they really don't want a nation ruled by Islamists, near their underbelly, armed with nukes. Thus, they may well use the event for propaganda gains, but aren't likely to help protect Iran's nuclear program. StuRat (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure if Russia is that worried about a nuclear-armed Iran. Iran has no qualms with modern Russia to my knowledge. They are a different brand of Islam than the Muslims that give the Russians trouble. You use the term "underbelly" as if it makes metaphorical sense, but Russia is not an animal and its southern border is not some sort of highly vulnerable area. Russia does not border Iran; at the moment, I don't think it has major interests that Iran would infringe upon (such was not the case in the 1970s). This is just speculation, but I suspect they aren't unduly worried about a nuclear Iran — it doesn't affect them much more than a nuclear Israel does. It has been suggested as a general rule that countries are most annoyed by other countries getting nuclear weapons if 1. they have a long history of animosity with the nuke-acquiring country or 2. the country has big aspirations for asserting power in the region near the nuke-acquiring country. The US has big aspirations everywhere so they are generally opposed to proliferation even by allies (they were against the Israeli bomb when it was still a question, they were against a Taiwanese bomb, they were against a South Korean bomb); the Russian ambition has receded since the end of the Cold War. They might even welcome an Iranian bomb — it would complicate Middle Eastern relations in ways they might be able to play to their advantage. But this is just speculation; I've no real evidence of what the Russians are thinking. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Think of how the US would react if Mexico decided it wanted the bomb (or Guatemala, if you want a nation which doesn't border the US). There is currently no animosity, but any nuclear weapons near the border do incur an additional risk. There's the possibility of those nations setting one off accidentally, or in testing, that releases radiation into your nation. Then there's the possibility of them (or rogue elements within that nation) selling it to somebody who uses it against you. Then there's the potential for relations to sour in the future. There's also the possibility of a revolution bringing to power somebody more antagonistic (Iran seems ripe for a "Persian spring"). Then there is the nuclear arms race it could trigger, greatly expanding the risk to all in the region. StuRat (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for the US being against Israel getting nuclear weapons? The general understanding (which has never been officially confirmed, of course, but I'm not sure anyone doubts it any more) is that the US supplied Israel with nuclear weapons... I don't think destabilising the Middle East is in anyone's interests (it puts oil supply lines in danger, more than anything), although it is possible a nuclear armed Iran would actually stabilise the region by causing a cold war and making everyone too scared to act. --Tango (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The US government didn't supply Israel with nuclear weapons; the Kennedy and Johnston administrations both put pressure on Israel not to go nuclear. Once they were nuclear, which was known by the Nixon administration, the pressure was not to announce it or test a weapon. Any good book on the Israeli nuclear program discusses this in depth, but for quick internet references, the documents here are instructive, and the account here, while critical of Kennedy's lack of real oomph on the issue, discusses his attempt to pressure the Israelis against the bomb. The Americans supplied Israel with many other weapons, including nuclear-capable fighters and things of that nature. But they didn't help them get the bomb early on, and were very opposed to it — mainly because they feared Israel might actually use it, and because it limited their own freedom of action in the region. The country that was most helpful for Israel to get the bomb was France. Their explicit reason for doing this (as revealed in French archival documents) is that they felt that a nuclear Israel would distract Egypt, which would keep them from helping out the Algerians; in this case, it was in French interests to somewhat destabilize the Middle East, in the 1960s. This is discussed in some depth in this interesting book. The account in Nuclear weapons and Israel is pretty good though it lacks any discussion of the Algerian motivation (which is pretty well-documented). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

To all those wondering what a possible preventative strike would look like... This is perhaps the most detailed report released yet (very recently released) and has amazing diagrams and pictures. It presents various scenarios depending on which country is performing the strike, and also analyzes the impact of such a strike. A very good report, I'd say. --Activism1234 18:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it still needs some work, to me. It has numerous typos, and the contents of the page "Iranian Counter Vulnerabilities:" are identical to the page "Israeli Strike:". I hope the info isn't as sloppy as the writing. StuRat (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the only Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle in general use by the US is the MQ-9 Reaper. It has a payload capacity of 1400kg according to our article. So it physically could carry a B61 (would probably have to modify the mounting points though). However, Iran's air defence systems include the SA-5, which is more than capable of shooting down a relatively slow-moving aircraft like an UAV.i.m.canadian (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources of Law

I recently watched a video of a discussion between Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Breyer, and found it very interesting that Breyer mentioned six sources of law (Text, precedent, historical development, tradition, purpose, and consequences) and was wondering if he came up with that classification himself or whether or not that was developed by some other legal scholar.

Also, could anyone recommend a good treatise on the sources of law in common law jurisdictions? I find the subject to be something which isn't looked at in that much detail in the scholarly literature of common law countries, and would be very grateful to find something on the subject. Thanks in advance. Rabuve (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Those 6 items so thoroughly overlap as to not be a very useful method of classification, IMHO. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Jurisprudence is a good starting point for answering the initial question. The short answer is there is no short answer. The study of the "source of the law" is a deep and varied topic, and you can (and people do) spend their whole lives doing nothing but studying and thinking about just some small aspect of this question. But start at the Juurisprudence article, read that, and then follow the links to see where it takes you. --Jayron32 17:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I know that there is obviously no short answer and different people are going to disagree quite a bit about the inclusion of some and their role in the legal process, but I am mostly surprised at the lack of writing on the subject. I would have thought that the great legal minds of the Common Law Tradition such as Coke or Blackstone would have discussed the matters in some detail, but to my knowledge (by skimming the tables of contents of some of their works) they do not spend much effort on questions of the principles of legal reasoning, and instead focus on the substantive law of whatever subject they were discussing. Are there any treatises by such figures which at least discuss the subject in some detail? Rabuve (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually I was going to suggest Blackstone. I can't name offhand any modern treatises about it because the ones I know tend to be very specific to an area of law. You might look at The Common Law by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.. If you want to get into more specific areas of law there's plenty on those of course. Also check Origins of the Common Law by Arthur R. Hogue. I've not read it, but it seems to be on topic. Shadowjams (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with StuRat, even moreso, Breyer's answer was ridiculous. You might as well say Airplanes are explained by The Wright Bothers, Howard Hughes, Boeing, Airbus, Lift, Vacations and War.

An excellent introduction to law is Law: Its Nature, Functions and Limits, read the reviews. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Good airplane example. StuRat (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

In his defense, when he defined the terms in more detail, they were quite distinct in meaning, and the term sources of law doesn't answer the question "where does the law come from" but "when answering legal questions, what things should we turn to for answers". Rabuve (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I found Richard Posner's The Problems of Jurisprudence an interesting read, twenty years ago. (After all this time I can't say why.) —Tamfang (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A question about the Westroads Mall shooting

I just read above a question about the difference between "massacre" and "shooting spree", and the asker mentioned the Westroads Mall shooting. My question is, the gunman Robert A. Hawkins entered the mall heavily armed. Aren't there metal-detecting devices in such large malls? AmericanMarinee (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If there are any, I've never seen them. What you're much more likely to see, in individual stores, are detectors of those little magnetized thingies they put into some products. And, frankly, shoplifting is a much more likely crime in a mall than a shooting spree is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No. Here's an article explaining why: Malls face difficult test of balancing safety and access. Mingmingla (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

How many people don't have cellphones or keys? Besides, it wouldn't have stopped the guy from shooting. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

What Bugs is referring to is discussed at Electronic article surveillance. Dismas|^(talk) 01:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Did Queen Victoria ever wear a Crinoline?

The question may seem odd, but in a book about fashion, I once read that Queen Victoria of Great Britain did not approve of the fashion of the crinoline, and that those critical to the crinoline used her example in their statements. It mentioned a contemporary saying: "God save our gracious queen, who does not wear crinoline". It this true? Did she in fact not wear a crinoline during the crinoline-era? Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a photograph of her wearing one here: [4] 83.104.128.107 (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It does indeed look like one, though it is hard to tell. --Aciram (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Depends whether by "crinoline" you mean the skirt style, the steel cage structure, or just the crinoline fabric itself. I have found a few hints, none of them unfortunately reliably sourced, that suggest Victoria was indeed a conservative dresser who disapproved of the crinoline. As our article Crinoline notes, "the first crinolines were petticoats starched for extra stiffness, made out of the new crinoline fabric". Wide skirts were held out by layer upon layer of these, which would have been hot, heavy and unwieldy. Stiffened hoop skirts followed (and even inflatable ones!), and eventually the steel and fabric cage crinoline. A number of online sources describe the cage as lighter and more comfortable than petticoats, but with a much increased risk of embarrassing public exposure if you tripped and fell, or a sudden gust of wind arose, hence the sudden increased interest in wearing drawers from the 1850s onward. Victoria is certainly pictured in wide skirts of the era, although not the insanely wide ones at the cutting edge of fashion, but your fashion book may perhaps mean that she preferred layers of petticoats to support them, rather than a racier cage crinoline. - Karenjc 17:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the steel cage crinoline structure. I have seen many images of her, but have found it hard to determine whether her skirts did conceal a crinoline structure. Has anyone heard of the saying mentioned above? --Aciram (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The post of early modern spies

In the early modern era - say the 18th-century - what means would a spy use to receive and post messages from his/her employer? Letters I assume (?), but how where they sent? By special, private couriers, perhaps? Thank you very much!--Aciram (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Letters were often sent by regular post, and sent in cypher. And it wasn't just spies, sensitive information was often sent in cypher, even regular diplomatic posts could be sent this way: I've just finished reading David McCulloch's biography of John Adams, and it mentions serval times cyphers being used for sensitive communications. Sometimes, the cyphers could take weeks or months to decode, and that was by the intended recipient. The XYZ Affair was one such diplomatic disaster which involved coded letters. The disadvantage of using private couriers is that, if they are caught, it is obvious that their private correspondance is more important, which could lead to increased suspicion. A coded message sent by regular post is easy to get mixed in with the rest of the mail, and wouldn't attract suspicion. --Jayron32 02:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Pigeon post? Of course the message would be in pidgin. This article says that if the message were important enough, the courier might memorize it. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

An example of message concealment by a courier was at the Siege of Derry; a small boy was able to get through the besiegers lines and into the city with a message concealed in his garter, and a second time sewn into a cloth covered button (presumably rather a large one). To make reply, the defenders took no chances and the answer was put into "a piece of bladder, in the shape of a suppositor, and the same was applied to the boy".[5] Alansplodge (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

First Indian reservation in the United States

I've encountered a Northwestern University document (details later) discussing what may have been the first Indian reservation in what's now the USA: created by the French in 1720, it was established for the Mitchigamea and was located near Fort de Chartres in southwestern Illinois, near the Mississippi River. Do we have any information on this reservation? Or can you point me to an online document or a book that might be in my university's library system? I've searched online but found nothing at all. Our Indian reservation article is woefully short in its history; it begins the historical account after the Civil War, but I know that there were federal reservations before that — for example, the Treaty of Lewistown, signed in 1829, abolished a reservation near where I grew up. As for the document: it's the National Register of Historic Places nomination form for the Kolmer Site, an archaeological site where the Michigamea established their first village after moving to the reservation. It's possibly online, but I can't link it: I downloaded it some time back from the website of the Illinois SHPO, but since then they've removed a lot of features, and I can't figure out how to return to it. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Colonial Carolina (later South Carolina) established a reservation for the Yamasee in 1707; [6]. In Virginia the Powhatan were forced onto reservations in the early 1600s; [7], which says two of these reservations, for the Pamunkey and Mattaponi, are the oldest reservations in the country, still existing today. I wonder though about places like Taos Pueblo, which goes back to even earlier colonial times (and before, obviously). Perhaps the status of such places in early Spanish colonial New Mexico stretch the meaning of "reservation", even if Taos and other ancient pueblos are reservations today. I don't know about the reservation you're trying to find out more about though. Pfly (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

One could argue that so-called Praying towns may have been the earliest Indian reservations, and these existed from the 1660s. The idea was to establish towns of Christianized Indians (see Praying Indian) so that such Indians would not be tempted to revert back to their Native belief systems. --Jayron32 05:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You may run into a problem defining a reservation. Essentially it's a system where certain areas are reserved for Native Americans and others are denied to them. However, early on, the areas available to Native Americans were much larger than the areas denied to them, so it was more like the colonists were the ones living in "reservations". StuRat (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really. The land was divided more along the lines of "The stuff that white people haven't got a chance to settle yet" vs. "The stuff they had". Reservations are more like what had been white land that was redesignated to segregate native Americans on is different than what had occured before, which was simply that there were vast tracts of land that White people hadn't yet settled. --Jayron32 23:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Successive treaties typically granted Native Americans exclusive use of a portion of their former lands (not land occupied by whites), and the reservations were then shrunken with each subsequent revision. In some cases they were actually moved to new locations, but the new locations were either unoccupied (unfortunately, because they were uninhabitable), or occupied by other Native Americans, not whites. StuRat (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I know this is off topic, sorry Nyttend, but on this point—up until the middle 19th century or so treaties between imperial/colonial powers and non-defeated natives often defined boundaries, but land that remained in native control was not usually called "reservation". That term typically referred to blocks of land set aside for natives within a larger region controlled by a colonial power. That "control" may have at times been fairly weak, and sometimes, as with the Yamasee, the natives may have been important allies whose position had grown hard due to indebtedness and settler encroachment. It made little sense to use a term like reservation for lands far beyond the frontier of control or sphere of influence (terms like Indian Reserve (1763) are modern inventions used by historians). The Yamasee reserve was called a reserve back then, but the native lands beyond the relatively small area under Carolina's control were not—they were called things like "Indian land", or "Cherokee country", and such. In the early 19th century the US control rapidly began sweeping across the continent. Natives in the east, like the Cherokee, became surrounded by American settlements. So surrounded and defined by treaty lines, they came to resemble reservations in the old sense of the word. By the middle to late 19th century the US effectively "controlled" the whole country—many tribes resisted, of course, but the power imbalance made the notion of two sovereign powers making treaty a bit of a farce. The few examples of notable resistance (Battle of the Little Bighorn, Seminole Wars, etc) were rare exceptions to the general rule. And in the end all natives in the US were forced to submit to US sovereignty (eg, the Dawes Act applied to most Indians, without their consent; the 13th Amendment applied to the Tlingit, etc). The popular image of Native American history is distorted, I think, by the fact that the most well-known history—mainly that of the 19th century—is also the very end of the last pretense of true native sovereignty. There were three or so centuries of previous history, when the power relationships were very different. Sorry for continuing off topic, I will see if I can find anything about the 1720 Mitchigamea reservation. And I agree that our Indian reservation's history section is very much in need of expansion! Pfly (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this relates to my comment that very early on, when Native Americans controlled most of the land, and granted colonists the use of a small portion of their land in a treaty, we can think of the colonists as being the ones living on reservations. StuRat (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Restating the question

Question wasn't clear enough, but you've provided useful information that I hadn't thought to ask about — thanks for the details on previous reservations. However, my primary question was: do we have any information on this specific reservation? Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This source, [8], suggests alternate spellings, Michigamea and Kohlmer site (Michigamea and Kolmer seem most common). Browsing the Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History shows three early 18th century "large villages" on the Mississippi River near Fort Chartres (the Atlas spells it without the de), but labels all three as simply "Illinois" villages. All three are on the east bank. One is shown at the mouth of the Kaskaskia River (apparently the Michigamea were absorded into the Kaskaskia tribe in the early to middle 18th century), another is shown just north of Fort de Chartres. The third north of the fort, about 2/3rds of the way to the Missouri River. These must be the three mentioned in that link—one being a Kaskaskia village (Guebert site), one a Michigamea (Kohlmer site), and one a mixed Kaskaskia-Michigamea village (the Waterman site). Other sources refer to the village just north of the fort as the "Michigamea village", but point out that Kaskaskia people joined the village soon after 1720.

It's hard to imagine the French establishing a reservation at or attached to one of these villages. Fort de Chartres was a tiny remote outpost deep in Indian country. This makes me think it wasn't a reservation in the modern sense.

There's a dissertation called The Kolmer Site: An Eighteenth Century Michigamea Village, but it doesn't appear to be easily available online. Snippet view of [9] shows us "KOLMER SITE (MICHIGAMEA VILLAGE), N of Fort Chartres Island and W of Fort Chartres State Park...". And this one, [10], "(NHL, HABS, 1966) Kolmer Site (Michigamea Village) North of Kaskaskia Island and west of Fort de Chartres State Park (1974)..."

Sorry that is all I can find right now. There's a bit about the Waterman Site here. Pfly (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Are serial killers smart or just lucky?

I mean, Jeffrey Dahmer was pulled over by police when he committed his first murder and the police did not check the bags he had in his back seats, which contained human remains. In 1991, when the Laotian boy escaped from his apartment, the police believed him and returned him to the apartment. Ted Bundy escaped from custody and remained at large for years while killing people. Gary Ridgway killed over 50 people and never got caught. Dennis Rader committed murders over a span of more than 10 years and got away with the murders. Are they smart or just lucky? Thank you. AmericanMarinee (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've read so many books about serial killers that I can't single out a resource to point you to, but from my readings on the subject, they are generally more lucky than smart. We imagine them to be very intelligent, but that doesn't bear out. After all, Dennis Rader was caught when he sent a floppy disk to a newspaper when he asked the police if it could be traced to his computer. They told him it couldn't (a lie), he believed them, and was promptly caught. Not exactly a rocket scientist. Our own article agrees: "Generally being described as possessing IQs in the "bright normal" range, although they are more likely to have low/average intelligence. A sample of 174 IQs of serial killers had a median IQ of 93. Only serial killers who used bombs had an average IQ above the population mean." I conclude this to mean that they are just lucky. Mingmingla (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, exactly how did they trace the floppy; was that explained? Did he re-use one that had had earlier files on it, which perhaps he "deleted", not understanding what that means in most filesystems? Or did he use some program like Word that encodes the registered licensee of the program into the file itself? Or something else? --Trovatore (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Our article has the answers: "Rader then sent his message and floppy to the police department, which quickly checked the metadata of the Microsoft Word document. In the metadata, they found that the document had been made by a man who called himself Dennis. They also found a link to the Lutheran Church." The police did not lie; there really is no way to trace a floppy to a computer. Of course if you decide to register Word with your real name and real organization, that information would be in the file, but that's hardly tracing a disk. --99.227.95.108 (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There is the issue that, happily, most people simply cannot comprehend such evil. We have an article on the banality of evil. We should have an article on the reality of evil, but we don't. μηδείς (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read all the studies, but it would seem the sampling is skewed as only serial killers who are identified and caught can be studied/given an IQ test. I would guess that "serial killers" are no more or less smart or lucky than "non-serial-killers". Maybe the more intelligent ones just don't get caught (as often).--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 00:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I dunno. I think Medeis is suggesting that we are ascribing intelligence to something else entirely that we (hopefully) are incapable of understanding. If that's the case, I agree. They aren't the same thing. But that's neither here nor there. Mingmingla (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the dumber ones got caught after the first murder and never got the chance to make it serial. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

With the case of Rader, it might be argued that his own arrogance got the best of him. Therefore it was his attitude and not intelligence that tripped him up. After all, the case was unsolved and pretty much dormant until he resurfaced. Dismas|^(talk) 01:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That could be, but the books I read indicated average intelligence. Not super smart, not super dumb. Mingmingla (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

As with any kind of criminal conduct, if the perp has several successes, he may begin to think he's smarter than he is, and may get complacent and careless. On the other hand, it might be relatively easy to get away with a single random killing, if there are no witnesses and nothing to tie the murderer to the victim. If you've ever watched some of those cold-case TV shows, a murder case may never be solved, or it may be solved years later due to some quirk of fate. The serial killer's achilles heel is that he can't stop. If Rader had resisted the urge to resume his "hobby", he might have gone to his grave with his secret. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Not all serial killers get caught. For the first, there may be a string of murders that never gets connected. Secondly, there are many known serial killers who have never been identified. Despite many hypotheses, Jack the Ripper has never been positively identified; and likely never will be given the temporal distance to the original case. There are a half-dozen pet theories, and everyone has their favorite, though nothing conclusive has ever come up. For a more modern case, the Zodiac Killer was never caught. Category:Unidentified serial killers has quite a few such cases. --Jayron32 05:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Or they might get caught for something else. (I'm thinking of a plot element in The Green Mile.) Since they don't get identified, anything's possible. If a serial killer stops, they might well be dead or disabled due to something unrelated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

@ Mingmingla, my point was that even cops don't think like serial killers, or, unless they are specialists, probably even think about serial killers without some really overt evidence. Gay kid running down the street with Dahmer running after him? The first thing you think as a benevolent human is "domestic dispute", not "cannibalism interrupted". Nobody notices the unimaginable. μηδείς (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Willie Pickton is a prime example: a single Vancouver police officer pegged that a serial killer was likely operating in Vancouver, but none of superiors believed it. Mingmingla (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That's likely it. Often it's only in retrospect that something turns out to be sinister. In a vague sort of way, this relates to the question about metal detectors at shopping malls. The fact is that there's always shoplifting going on, but shooting sprees are extremely rare. No one expects it to happen. However, they do use metal detectors and court houses where it's reasonable to suppose that someone might try to bring a gun in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, both are a clear example of security theater, which is to say that their greatest effect is to make people feel safe or feel as though something is being done to stop shoplifting. A metal detector does nothing to stop someone who is determined enough to bypass them (which are rediculously easy to do), nor does a store's security scanners at the doors stop a determined shoplifter. At best, they deter crimes of convenience: they may stop someone from making a snap decision or something like that. But if you have half a brain and want to cause a problem, doing so is not hard. --Jayron32 13:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The most important reason serial killers are so successful at evading police is that their victims tend to be random. This deprives police of one of their most powerful tools, looking at who had a reason to kill the victim. Thus, if there are no witnesses, all they have to go on is evidence left behind. Even fingerprints and DNA are not useful if the perp's fingerprints and DNA are not already in the system (although they are later useful at trial). StuRat (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Not so much "random", as they fit a profile, but personally unrelated. See Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy. Nowadaays we even have TV shows called Profiler (TV series). μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget the Cleveland Torso Murderer who by some accounts outwitted Eliot Ness and had some help from some highly placed politicians. Marketdiamond (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

September 7

How Come it Took Until WWI for African-Americans to Start Moving Out of the Southern U.S. in Large Numbers?

I mean, the Northern and Western U.S. had a lot of jobs opportunities and good economies decades before WWI. One would think that due to all the racism in the South, much more blacks would have left the South between 1865 and 1915, but very few blacks left the South during those 50 years despite the massive racism (lynchings, Jim Crow laws, segregation, etc.) in the South during this time period. Futurist110 (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There was plenty of racism in the north, too, and there still is. Regardless, moving requires some resources and also the will to get up and do it. A lot of folks stick with what they're familiar with, even if it doesn't seem to be in their best interests. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

True, but not nearly to the same extent as in the South. There was much less lynchings, segregation, and discrimination in the Northern United States. I guess you're right about the whole staying where it's familiar to you. However, that did not hold true for a lot of Europeans who immigrated to the U.S. in large numbers in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say the GI bill had a lot to do with it after WWII.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but keep in mind that I was pointing out WWI, rather than WWII, as the point from which large black migration to the North and West really began. Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe the questioner's premise is completely accurate. See this article, for instance. We have a short article on the same subject - Exodus of 1879. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

In the sense that there were a few pre-WWII exodus movements, it's not correct, but in the sense that post-WWII there was a huge exodus movement, it is correct. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Other than the Kansas Exodus, which large black exodus movements occurred before WWI? Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, there were economic "push" factors too, such as increasing mechanization of southern agriculture. Article is Great Migration (African American)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Which points out that there was significant pre-WWII migration as well. In a way it was a perfect setup — pre-WWII, you have about a million African-Americans going North, the trailblazers. WWII comes and goes, and you have a lot of people back from combat, and back from industrial labor in factories, and the GI bill. (And significant numbers of the factory labor during WWII were African-American, and they were often moved to different places in the country anyway to do this labor.) This happens right as the American manufacturing economy is about to start booming, and there are already significant numbers of African-Americans in the North laying the groundwork for the move (founding churches and other community-based things of that nature). So (as is often the case) there are multiple reinforcing factors. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about the pre-WWI era, not the pre-WWII era. Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Even before WWI, there was some, I was reading a journal article on the subject in connection with my research on Joseph B. Foraker and the black vote, though only two or three percent, was crucial in states like Ohio, which were so finely balanced (kinda like today!) that the Governor of Ohio was almost automatically a presidential contender.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

One, there was an economic boom that provided jobs; two, men returning from WWI had a much better idea of the world outside the South; and, three, once small communities of blacks in the North got established they provided support groups for further immigration at a geometrically increased rate. See Harlem Renaissance. μηδείς (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't the economy in the North and West good before WWI as well? Your second point is absolutely correct--if a black person sees life in Europe, then he'd probably be less willing to return to the South and permanently stay there. There were small communities of blacks in the Northern and Western U.S. even before WWI, though. Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that blacks were actually more welcome in the South than the North, so long as they "kept their place". That is, the Southern economy had long depended on blacks in menial jobs, while the North did not, at that time. Thus, moving north would cause white resentment that "they are taking our jobs and moving into our communities". This resulting in KKK actions, etc. However, when there were more jobs than could be filled locally, due to the WW2 war factories and the post-WW2 economic boom, that changed the equation. StuRat (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that getting lynched much more and getting discriminated against (with segregation and Jim Crow laws) would be considered "more welcome". The Northern economy also depended on menial jobs, but it was primarily white European immigrants, rather than blacks, who worked at those jobs before WWI. The KKK could hunt blacks down in the South or in the North and West, and might have been more active in the South than in most areas outside the South. Also, the KKK was only revived in 1915, after WWI began. Before 1915 the KKK was essentially nonexistent for 40 years. You're right that the WWI and WWII mobilization efforts did provide much more jobs in the North and West that blacks could fill, and thus they took the opportunity to leave the South and to move to other places in order to get those jobs. Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

But the difference is that the KKK (or individuals or plain old mobs) in the South attacked blacks for being "uppity", while, in the North, they attacked them for merely being present. So, if blacks stayed in the South and "kept their place", they would be relatively safe. StuRat (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? This would be interesting if true. However, again, keep in mind that the KKK was essentially nonexistent between 1875 and 1915 or so. Futurist110 (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, if they attacked all blacks in the South, what would that accomplish ? They didn't want blacks to leave, as that was the labor force. They just wanted them to "behave". Is that the part you want a source for, or is it the part of them being more indiscriminate in attacking blacks in the North? StuRat (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The part of them being more indiscriminate in attacking blacks in the North. Futurist110 (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

From Ku_Klux_Klan#Social_factors:

"The Great Migration of African Americans to the North stoked job and housing competition and racism by whites in Midwestern and Western industrial cities. The second Klan achieved its greatest political power in Indiana; it was active throughout the South, Midwest, especially Michigan; and in the West, in Colorado and Oregon. The migration of both African Americans and whites from rural areas to Southern and Midwestern cities increased social tensions."

"The Klan grew most rapidly in urbanizing cities that had high growth rates between 1910 and 1930, such as Detroit, Memphis, and Dayton in the Upper South and Midwest; and Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston in the South. In Michigan, more than half of the Klan members lived in Detroit, where they numbered 40,000; they were concerned about urban issues: limited housing, rapid social change, and competition for jobs with European immigrants and Southerners both black and white."

I believe this also happened earlier, but it's harder to track down, as the anti-black violence was performed by individuals and smaller groups, at that time. StuRat (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

@ Futurist above, if you are an American, I would be surprised you are not familiar with the boom of the Roaring Twenties. You can also ignore StuRat's "contributions". Blacks didn't face legal discrimination in the North, so in places like Harlem where they didn't fear social ostracism, they did quite well. Quite well, indeed. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am an American and I am aware of the 1920s economic boom. However, there was also a large economic boom in the Northern and Western U.S. in a lot of the years before WWI as well. Futurist110 (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

They should ignore your "contribution", because whether the discrimination was codified as law is irrelevant, it existed either way. See the "DISCRIMINATION IN THE NORTH" section here: [11]. And the Harlem Riots indicate that they weren't as happy as you think. StuRat (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this article. I'm wondering if the 1900 NYC race riot was more an exception to the rule or the rule itself, though. Futurist110 (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

U.S States, by the date of repeal of anti-miscegenation laws:

  No laws passed

  Repealed before 1887

  Repealed from 1948 to 1967

  Overturned on 12 June 1967

Of course there was individual racism, there still is, plenty of it, worldwide. There was for the most part no legal racism with the exception of miscegenation laws in the North. See Jim Crow and List of Jim Crow law examples by State. Members of my family still remember the stark difference once one crossed the Manson-Nixon line between Pennsylvania and Maryland; integration to the north, Jim Crow separation to the south. StuRat seems to be "arguing" (if you can call linking to Harlem riots that were instigated not against blacks, but in defense of blacks, arguing) a point rather than offering reasons why blacks did indeed move to the North. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point entirely, that blacks wouldn't riot if things were as good as you claim. And was this "Manson"-Dixon line patrolled by Charles Manson ? :-) StuRat (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say "Manson-Dixon", now, did I? μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It appears that there were no miscegenation laws in the North after 1887 either, with the exception of Indiana (if the info in this map is correct). Futurist110 (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The list of Jim Crow law link I just gave mentions more, but that article sorely lacks references. μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be using a rather narrow def of the North, excluding West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and anything west of Iowa. StuRat (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right that most Western states had anti-intermarriage laws, but all Northern states except Indiana did not after 1887. And Yes, when I'm talking about the Northern U.S. I mean Iowa, Minnesota, and all the U.S. states east of them that were free states right before the U.S. Civil War. I'll look at your Jim Crow law link in a minute. Futurist110 (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

By that definition, California appears to be a "Northern state", but it had such a law significantly after 1887 (though this is something I've just learned). --Trovatore (talk) 04:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Typo--I meant states east of Minnesota and Iowa. Futurist110 (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Manson-Nixon line at 07:53. μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sumerian burial

Why did the Sumerians and other Mesopatamian people go to trouble of burying their kings and queens with slaves, musical instruments and other grave goods, as in the case of Queen Puabi, if their belief was that the underworld was a place where all men go regardless of rank to suffer a dreary existence in which they "...dwell in total darkness, Where they drink dirt and eat stone, Where they wear feathers like birds"[12]? In made since with Egyptian burials since their outlook on the afterlife was one of eternal paradise, but it doesn't make sense for the Sumerians have such lavish burial practices.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The text you quote is dated 600 years after Puabi (and it's possible that it used some poetic license as well). I think it's too simplistic to suppose all of Sumerian and Akkadian civilization had a single unified belief system regarding the afterlife during all of their existence. There's also a lot we don't know about them and probably will never know. It's quite possible that Puabi's burial reflected a view of the afterlife similar to that found in Egypt. - Lindert (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There is an article called "Was Dust Their Food and Clay Their Bread?", by Caitlín E. Barrett, [13] which was published in the Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions. It discusses this exact problem in great detail for about 60 pages.  Card Zero  (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Canada severs ties with Iran, where to put this

Canada closes embassy in Iran, expels Iranian diplomats "Canada has closed its embassy in Iran, effective immediately, and declared personae non gratae all remaining Iranian diplomats in Canada," "Canada’s position on the regime in Iran is well known. Canada views the Government of Iran as the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today."

The statement cited Iran's support for the Assad regime in Syria and failure to comply with UN resolutions on its nuclear program, and its threats against Israel. AmericanMarinee (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

How about Canada-Iran relations... AnonMoos (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Iranian embassy in Canada up to no good ?

The first link above contains this quote:

"It is completely inconsistent with any diplomatic mission for the Iranian mission in Ottawa to interfere in the liberties that [Iranian-Canadians] enjoy in Canada. Any police organization will certainly take a look at any serious allegations that are raised in terms of their conduct."

What are these "serious allegations" ? StuRat (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The quote does not actually say that there have been any serious allegations but that if there are any the police force will look into it. If there had been some I think he would have said something like "the police forces are looking into a serious allegation that has been made about the diplomatic mission". CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, but that isn't the type of thing one brings up in a vacuum. It's rather like saying "if anybody from Poland attempts to assemble a nuclear weapon here, the police will investigate". StuRat (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if the government doesn't want to say exactly which cookie jar they caught the Embassy's hand in for national security reasons. We may find out eventually, but I wouldn't exactly hold my breath waiting for an explanation. I'm actually impressed by Baird's actions and choice of words here. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Look at the second and fourth paragraphs of the section, " "Obviously we're concerned by some of the reports that we've heard," Baird said." It seems to indicate that some sort of report has been made, but I suspect there is also a bit of tough talking here. I notice too that he says "Any police organization" which could mean the Ottawa Police Service or any other of Canada's police forces. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sturat, it's in response to a passage above, which says "The calls were sparked by a July news report that said Iran's cultural counsellor in Ottawa, Hamid Mohammadi, suggested Iranian expatriates should be nurtured to be of service to Iran." --Activism1234 22:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but that doesn't quite seem to fit with "interfere in the liberties that [Iranian-Canadians] enjoy", unless this "nurturing" involves some type of threats or coercion. StuRat (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Embassy / mission

What is it with Canadian government talking about missions rather than embassies? Are these synonyms or is there a subtle difference (possibly a leftover from Canada's status as a British dominion)? — Kpalion^(talk) 09:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The mission refers to the group of people that have been sent to the country. Technically, embassy means the same thing, but it is often used these days to refer to the building housing the mission. Since they want to talk about the people, not the building, it is less ambiguous to say "mission". (See diplomatic mission, to which embassy is a redirect.) --Tango (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Canada does not solely have embassies abroad, but also high commissions (in Commonwealth countries) and consulates. Mission (short for diplomatic mission) is the all-encompassing term. --Xuxl (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think consulates are a type of mission. They don't have a diplomatic role. --Tango (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Consulates are also diplomatic missions. There are two types of consulates: secondary diplomatic missions providing only consular services (e.g. visas, passport services, assistance to nationals in the host country...) in capital cities where the country already has an Embassy or a High Commission; and diplomatic missions in non-capital cities. Larger examples of the latter are usually called a "consulate general", but smaller ones are simply a consulate. Their tasks are very similar to an embassy's, although they will deal with local rather than national authorities. Their personnel are diplomats, although they have different privileges and immunities than Embassy personnel; these are defined in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. --Xuxl (talk) 07:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Who's militarily stronger?

Canada or Australia? AmericanMarinee (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

By which criteria? Total forces strength? Weaponry? Canadian Forces indicates that Canada has 68,250 active duty military, with an additional 45,000 or so in reserve. The Australian Defence Force has 59,023 active duty personel, with another 44,000 or so on some sort of reserve. So the Canadian military is slightly larger. Raw troop numbers aren't always the best measure however, so you'd also need to know what sort of equipment each nation uses. --Jayron32 15:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

What about their weaponry, Navy, Air Force and Army, who's more modern? Thank you. AmericanMarinee (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably tough to say. We have articles titled Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy, List of modern Canadian Army equipment, List of infantry weapons and equipment of the Canadian military, List of aircraft of the Royal Canadian Air Force all for Canada and List of current ships of the Royal Australian Navy, Weaponry of the Australian Army, and List of current Royal Australian Air Force aircraft for Australia. You can research from there and draw your own conclusions as to who has the better equipment. --Jayron32 15:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It's actually a really interesting question. Yes measures vary, but are they so close that you can't make an informed conclusion about which? If you had to ask who's military was stronger, the U.S. or Mongolia, I think you'd have an easy time answering. This is the same thing, just a bit tougher. It's tough because they're pretty close to being equal. And they both have the assumed support of the U.S. and the U.K., which are the #1 and #4 spenders on military. I'd gander that money spent is probably the best measure. On that metric Australia spends slightly more than Canada, both in GDP and real terms. Shadowjams (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess we can't really know until they have a war. Shall we get on that? CambridgeBayWeather, I hear that JackOfOz thinks hockey is not really a sport. HiLo48, Bielle told me that Aussie beer is the worst in the world. --Trovatore (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

My bets are on the Aussies, howevermuch the Canadians deserve out thanks for the Iranian Hostage Crisis. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd be watching for moral support from the Queen of Australia. I'm sure the Canucks would be looking to the Queen of Canada. Those 2 old queens ought to have it out between themselves and tell us who won, and save us all a whole lot of grief. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It would certainly be tricky for the UK if they ever came to blows, as we are obliged to defend both of them if they ever came under attack - Canada through NATO and Australia through the Five Power Defence Arrangements (besides the moral imperative - blood being thicker than water and all that). We'd probably just have to declare war on ourselves. Alansplodge (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Back in the day the US would have bought the one, and annexed the other. Nowadays our head of state would probably bow to each, offer an apology, and grant them amnesty should they want to apply for foodstamps. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If the Aussies were to invade, we would fight in the offices, we would fight around the desks and in the conference rooms. We would never surrender, unless it were done in triplicate with the proper forms.[14] Clarityfiend (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Where's the "like" button on this thing? --Trovatore (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The template {{RD-best}} assigns a star. μηδείς (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Like Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Seperate civilian and military departments for national defense

Some countries have two separate departments tasked with national defense, a civilian one and a military one. Australia (Australian_Defence_Force,Department_of_Defence_(Australia) and Canada (Canadian_Forces,Department_of_National_Defence_(Canada)) are examples of this. While other countries (US for example) have a unitary department for defense. Is there a common name for these two types of arrangements? A8875 (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if there is a distinct name for this, but the relevant article is Civilian control of the military. To me that's the real question — is the military independent of civilian authority or is it subservient to it? I'm unfamiliar with the Canadian and Australian examples, but I wonder where they fall on this spectrum. I suspect they aren't that different, in practice, from a US-style arrangement. This is in contrast with places where the military exerts much more power over all matters of state policy (e.g. Pakistan). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking that nations with smaller military budgets also have a plan to use civilians for defense in the case of invasions, while, in the US, the large standing military makes that unnecessary, and the military structure reflects that difference. StuRat (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I think a closely related concept to what the OP is asking about is Gendarmerie, which is, like the examples cited above, a hybrid military/police force. --Jayron32 18:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Is that really different from the US? "Canadian Forces" is essentially just the army, navy, air force, etc combined into one command. They are still separate from the government department, like in the US. The Minister of Defence is always a civilian cabinet minister (well, except that one time, briefly during WWII). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Australia doesn't have 2 separate "departments" either, unless the OP is using that word in a generic sense. The Australian Defence Force is exactly like the Canadian Forces, a blanket term to cover the Army, Navy and Airforce, that is, the people who actually go out and defend the country and are prepared to die in the attempt. The chiefs of each arm are all senior serving officers, as is the Chief of the Defence Force, who oversees the entire shebang. There are also a small number of civilians involved. The Department of Defence is the bureaucratic arm of the Australian Government that deals with all defence-related matters. It is staffed mainly by civilians, and a civilian is the Secretary (= CEO) of the Department of Defence. The Secretary of the Defence Department and the Chief of the Defence Force both have input into government defence policy. They both take their orders directly from the government. In that sense we have 2 "departments", but only one of them is called a "department". (Once upon a time, we had 5 separate bureaucratic departments dealing with defence: the Department of Defence, the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, the Department of Air*, and the Department of Supply. But wiser heads prevailed and they were unified. PS. * No, not the Department of the Airforce, but the Department of Air. Weird.) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I meant it in the generic sense, as in "an administrative subdivision". A8875 (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

A little bit of a tangent, but many militaries have dual-roles depending on circumstances. For example, the U.S. Coast Guard is a civilian civil defense department during peace, but a military arm during war. Similarly the National Guard (and state equivalents) have large civilian roles during peacetime. I believe the rules of war also reflect this distinction somewhat by drawing some nuanced distinctions between law enforcement and military personnel during war. Shadowjams (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The United States Department of Homeland Security and the United States Department of Justice are both civilian departments responsible for national defense. The United States Coast Guard and the FBI are defense agencies. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking (and also loosely speaking) the United States Department of Defense is also a fully civilian department, as the United States practices Civilian control of the military. Now, there are active and retired military officers throughout the Department of Defense, but the roles they fill in the department are considered civilian roles; when former General Dwight David Eisenhower was President, it didn't make the office of President a military office. --Jayron32 12:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Except to the extent that he or she is ex officio the Commander-in-Chief regardless of any personal history in the armed forces. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Status of the princesses of Japan

In the article Emperor of Japan, there a lot of information about the marriage of emperors and crown princes, and about which brides were considered to be suitable for them to marry, but I can find no information about the Imperial princesses (nor about the younger princes not being heirs to the throne either, but that is a different matter), and I am curious to find that out. Which status did the Japanese princesses have? did they have any role to play in the court? Where they secluded, or allowed to meet men? Did they marry, or where they expected not to? If they did, which partners where considered suitable for them? Only relatives? Did they keep their status as royals after marriage to a non-royal man? Perhaps it is different depending on which time period: I am very curious about the early modern age. Thank you Neptunekh2 (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC) 17:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure of Japan specifically, but in cultures with a patrilineal monarchy, royal princesses were frequently married off to royalty in other kingdoms in order to cement diplomatic bonds. They often had no choice in who they married and dating would be strictly forbidden. StuRat (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Japanese princesses were either forbidden to marry or married off to a member of one of Japan's princely families, depending on circumstances. There was essentially no marriage of any kind between the Imperial family and non-Japanese. And generally the women/girls had no say in it. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 08:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

As for general information, see these. Imperial House of Japan, Sayako Kuroda, and individual princess articles.[15] and [16]. They are not secluded and, of course, they are allowed to meet men. Princess Mako of Akishino was found drinking when she was under age. See these. [17] and [18]. Oda Mari (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Changing course of the river Thames over the last 1000 years

Hi, I'm looking to find some resources that (accurately and scientifically) give the changing course / basin profile of the River Thames over the last 1000 years. Human impact has made a great difference to how and where it runs. Marshes have been drained, side channels built, land reclaimed. Any links appreciated. Cheers. Span (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You've asked the question once already at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Changing_course_of_the_river_Thames_over_the_last_1000_years. Please keep this all in one place. --Jayron32 19:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. You were told to ask here. I wouldn't have given that advice to you, but as someone did, we'll just leave this here. Whatever. --Jayron32 19:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Had you said the past 2000 years, I would be able to suggest The Thames through time: the archaeology of the gravel terraces of the upper and middle Thames : the early historical period, AD 1-1000. I haven't read it myself but the blurb says it gives a "summary of evidence for the character of the river and the vegetation and environment of its floodplain [...] followed by a detailed account of the evolving settlement pattern as currently understood from archaeological evidence."

Wrong time period notwithstanding, is this along the right lines? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're interested in detailed profiles of a specific area, rather than the whole basin, there's some excellent and intriguing maps in Oxford before the University (Oxford Archaeology, 2003; ISBN 0947816755). Andrew Gray (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

2000 years is great. The Thames through time seems just the thing. I'll get it. I was hoping to find some online maps of the changing topography, figuring such things must exist somewhere. If not, it they certainly should - it would be a great resource. On a slight tangent - do you know if Googlemaps (or other public mapping/satellite data services) hold historical data for online public searching (satellite, Google Earth..)? It seems this would be a great way to track changing topography, over time, into the future. Thanks very much. Span (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

For London specifically (although somewhat more recently, in the past few hundred years), you could look at the Thames Embankments. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The Thames through time and Oxford before the University are both part of the Oxford Archaeology Thames Valley Series. Other books in the series are listed here - you might find something interesting among them. I notice there's also a forthcoming book which seems to be the sequel to The Thames through time: The Thames Through Time: Human occupation to 1500 BC, which focuses on the next 500 years.

You asked about historic maps and images. The Thames Discovery Programme looks a good place to start, with links to old OS maps and other works including Charles Booth's Poverty map, albeit concentrating on London as a whole rather than the Thames itself.

Finally any discussion about the Thames and its changing role in the city has to mention Sir Joseph Bazalgette, probably the man who had the greatest single impact on the river. There are plenty of biographies available, each taking a different view of his life and work. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

As this site shows, meaningful maps are a product of the last 500 years. By comparing the maps linked therein, you may get an idea of how things have changed over that time, but I wouldn't count on the accuracy of the older maps. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Bazalgette is a key article for you. --Dweller (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody's yet mentioned Joseph Bazalgette. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

See Seawall for a brief mention of the Thames. The history of the flood defences along the Thames is important for the economic history of Britain, but I don't know of any resource that tries to pull it all together, unfortunately. I don't think anyone knows for sure when the seawalls downstream of London Bridge were built - if they were there in Roman times, did they follow the same lines as today, probably not. If you are interested in the lower Thames as well as the upper Thames, you would want to search for information about the Kent and Essex marshes. Flood defences were destroyed in storms in 1377 and some centuries later they were destroyed again at Barking and Dutch engineers brought in to advise. The book on the Thames by Hilaire Belloc might be of interest although scarcely up to date. There are books on the construction of the London Docks, which were a massive feat of engineering at the time. And of course there is a lot of documentation about the closure of the docks. The Thames Barrier is relevant and there may be stuff written about Boris Island that will give you links to the history. With the ideas from other respondents above, that's all the pointers I can think of at the moment, but feel free to let us know how you get on and ask again. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

September 8

Societies/Countries with Voluntary Child Support

Have there been any countries and/or societies throughout history that gave men (or at least most men) the choice to opt-out of forced child support payments? Futurist110 (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It would not be "forced" child support if the non-custodial parent had a choice. A choice to "opt out" wouldn't be much help to the children involved, would it? It may be that I don't understand the question. A non-custodial parent in Canada can give up some/all rights to his/her children in return for making less/no further payments in respect of their care, but that is a matter of contract between the parents. If the custodial parent agrees, the non-custodial parent can cease making payments and still have full parental rights, but the choice is controlled by the custodial parent. Am I anywhere in the neighbourhood of your question? Bielle (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't debating the merits of allowing men to opt-out of child support (though if you want to do that, I can have an e-mail debate with you on this). I don't think you quite understood my question--I was asking whether there were any cultures, countries, or societies that allowed men to unilaterally say, "I don't want to pay any child support or to have any parental rights", and let them opt-out of child support and parental rights without the consent of anyone else. Futurist110 (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Forced child support is a rather modern phenomenon. Until this last century men almost invariably got custody, were their wives even able to divorce them. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't appear to have anything of quality on this. The article child custody is a joke so far as its recentism. Then there's paterfamilias. Nothing in between I see. μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

What if the man 100+ years ago didn't want custody of his children (or what if he got a woman pregnant while she and he were unmarried)? Would he still be forced to pay child support? Also, my parents have speculated that men might have been able to legally opt-out of forced child support payments in the USSR, but I'm unsure about this. Does anyone know more about child support in the USSR? Futurist110 (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have an example from 102 years ago. My grandmother was born out of wedlock, in British-ruled Ireland, in 1910. Her biological father did a bunk to Canada (as did several other members of his family, apparently for similar reasons). Based on other examples of pre-marital pregnancy in my family tree, I believe if he'd stayed, social pressure would have required him to "do the right thing" and marry my great grandmother - child support from an absentee father, legally required or voluntary, seems to have been unheard of. He only got out of it by travelling halfway across the world. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a Sudanese friend who is kind of shocked at the idea of forced child support. The idea that he (or anyone) would even have to be forced to do such a thing was a bit insulting to him. Wrad (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, because after you've ejaculated, your responsibility is done... --Jayron32 03:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This might be a bit off-argument, but consent to ejaculation/sex does not equal consent to paying child support. Thus, there actually are some people who support a man's right to choose. Futurist110 (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for this interjection. However, if you are an American, Futurist110, provisions of the 14th Amendment have led the courts consistently to the opposite opinion. From the article linked:

In one of the first cases to discuss the issue, Stephen K. v. Roni L., 105 Cal. App. 3d 640, 164 Cal. Rptr. 2d 618 (1980), the court held that the father's argument that he should not have to pay child support because his partner lied about contraception was nothing more than a request for court supervision of the promises made between the parties in the bedroom concerning their private sexual conduct. The court further opined that since no method of birth control is 100% effective, if the man had wished that his conduct not result in pregnancy, he could have taken precautionary measures regarding birth control regardless of the representations made to him. In essence, the constitutionally protected right to privacy includes the right of an individual to be free from unwarranted governmental interference into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child, but it does not extend to the right to avoid child support obligations once a child has resulted. Bielle (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of what American courts have ruled on this issue (including male victims of rape to pay child support). However, I don't find their argument convincing when it comes to this, especially considering that a similar argument could be used to deny raped women abortions if one draws the line that defines personhood at a different stage of human development. Also, their argument is logically inconsistent because parents could put their children in an orphanage and theoretically those children could stay there for 18 years and continuously be miserable. However, I do know of a better argument to force men to pay child support in all cases except rape (a man/boy being raped by a woman). If you want to discuss this issue with me further and debate the merits of various positions on this (or other) issues, I'd be more than happy to have a Wikipedia e-mail conversation with you. :) Futurist110 (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Wrad's Sudanese friend meant that he was insulted that he would have to be forced to pick up his obligations because he would, as a matter of course, do the responsible thing by his children. That's the way I read it, anyway. Bielle (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Jayron. He was shocked at the very thought that anyone would abandon their kids like that. And insulted by the fact that the government assumed he had to be forced to pay. Wrad (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I misinterpreted. You're quite right, of course, as is your friend. --Jayron32 03:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

He said in his society, if a man did such a thing, everyone would know it and it would be a great shame to him. Wrad (talk) 03:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

And yet his society has no problem executing gays. Futurist110 (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it does have a problem with that. He is from South Sudan, where there is no death penalty for homosexual acts. (There sure is a lot of prejudice in this thread! Can we hold off on jumping to conclusions, here?) Wrad (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

In that case, you should have said South Sudanese rather than Sudanese. Anyway, homosexuality is still illegal in South Sudan and is punishable with a large penalty. For the record, you're the one who started talking about South Sudanese morals. Futurist110 (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No, Wrad didn't start to talk about Sudanese morals, except as a direct response to your initial question. He gave you an example of a society where social pressure, not law, would "force" a father to support his children. It is thus voluntary, but only in so far as the father does not care about what his society thought of him. It is not a method that would work in most western countries where one can just move a few blocks away, and be anonymous. (How you jumped from here to the treatment of homosexuals, I don't know.) Bielle (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

As to Futurist110's question about 100 years ago, I don't think that the concept of child support existed as a legal matter, or not in Canada, at any rate. In some social circles, failing to support your children might make the father persona non grata among his friends, but that was not a legal issue. Under the law, or at least under the law as it was then enforced, men did pretty well what they wanted with their women and their children in or out of wedlock. It was only in 1929, less than a hundred years ago, that women were granted status as "persons" under the law of Canada. Prior to that, they could be punished under the law but were granted none of its rights or benefits. It is only relatively recently, in historical terms, that the pendulum has begun to move back the other way. Bielle (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Futurist110 (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Back in the day, Futurist, the father could send his children to a work house or give them up to an orphanage or even comprachicos if he didn't wish to support them, or give them to whomever would take them. I am surprised you are not familiar with Dickens. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Parents can still send their children to orphanages today. Futurist110 (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No one denied that. See safe-haven laws μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not so easy, Futurist. With both parents' consent, they can of course give the child up for adoption to anyone who wants the child, provided the recipient can legally take custody under state law. But except under the specific conditions of a safe-haven law, and other laws that handle situations in which the parents are not financially/physically/emotionally capable of caring for a child, you can't simply drop your kid off somewhere for the state to take care of him. Or, well, you can, but it's a crime. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wait--so parents can't just drop their children off at orphanages? Futurist110 (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Under the safe haven law, which varies in the US from state to state, you can drop your child off at a police station or hospital only if they are under a certain age. This is to discourage frightened teenage mothers from simply tossing their babies in a dumpster. Beyond the cutoff age, doing such a thing is punishable as child abandonment. Whether and how child abandonment is punishable varies significantly between states. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't the unwilling mother simply get an abortion if she doesn't want the offspring, though? Also, has this law actually saved any lives? You would think that women would be afraid of prosecution if they simply kill or abandon their babies right after they are born, since isn't it easy to use DNA testing to determine the infant's mother and then prosecute her? Also, wouldn't allowing women to simply drop off their offspring at police stations and hospitals be a violation of the father's parental rights if he wants to raise the child himself? Futurist110 (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The laws weren't written for mothers who don't want their child, but for mothers who are afraid of anyone knowing they're pregnant. Mostly teenage mothers. People who may be either afraid or embarrassed to visit an abortion provider, especially in states where doing such a thing is not trivial. Basically, women who are more afraid of their parents than the police. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

And of course there are safe-haven laws. I am surprised no one has mentioned that. What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children!? μηδείς (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

DNA comparisons, TV shows notwithstanding, are only useful if you have a small group of mothers against which to compare the the baby's sample. For example, when multiple mothers claim a child , the mistaken ones can be weeded out by this process. However, one baby and a city full of potential mothers is not a practical situation in which to make comparisons, and is expensive as well. As for getting an abortion, this is a possible solution for those of legal age, who know their own mind about the matter (and this is not a simple issue to start and is made more complex by the pregnancy hormone rush), who have no religious or other scruples against taking such a step, who are sufficiently competent to understand that there is such a service and to find and use it and who have the money for the procedure. In any other set of circumstances, the mother needs the co-operation of others and that may not be available. In other circumstances, women give birth and do not discover until afterwards (or the authorities decide for them), sometimes as late as years afterwards, that they are not capable of parenting. Having a baby sounded like a good idea; the reality was not.

As for the father's rights in an abandoned child, the authorities would first have to be able to identify him. This may not be a trivial search, especially if the mother does not know for certain or is afraid to tell. The assumption (possibly in error) would be that, for a mother to get to the stage of abandoning her baby/child, there can have been no father available. Bielle (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If a woman discovers years afterwards that she doesn't want the child, isn't it too late for her to leave her child at a police station or a hospital? I mean, safe haven laws only work for a very short amount of time. Also, if a county has a national DNA database where everyone has their DNA in it, then it would be very easy and quick to determine an abandoned baby's paternity. Also, doesn't it take very long right now and cost a huge amount of money to determine the parents of an abandoned child over the age that safe-haven laws can be applied? Futurist110 (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

DNA databases for people who have not been arrested do not exist and ones that include people who have been arrested but not convicted are not common. As others have said repeatedly, these new born abandonments are done because of fear regarding their community's reaction, not simply because the mother doesn't want the child. Determining the parents of an abandoned newborn and an abandoned child who is several years old are a completely different matter and it has little to do with DNA. Abandoning a young child involves the complicity of all the mother's relatives and friends who know this child exists. It isn't easy to do and if it is done, the mother's identity is likely to be revealed when people who know of the child's existence report it missing.

One thing I will add about the original question is that the advent of DNA paternity testing and increase in the prevalence of contraception in the last quarter of the 20th have changed the nature of the child support debate and the laws that surround it dramatically. Comparisons to societies of the past are not that applicable. --Daniel 19:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Another reason for the change in laws, specifically the criminalization of child abandonment, has to do with changes in who takes care of abandoned children. It used to be primarily the responsibility of charitable organizations and charitable arms of religious institutions. Following WWII especially, the care of abandoned children became primarily a government responsibility, and so US state governments created laws to discourage the activity, a purpose which was held to be constitutional in Jones v. Helms (1981). And all of this was following a general movement circa 1850 that held that children are mentally at their healthiest when raised in a nuclear family, an opinion that was notably promoted by Theodore Roosevelt, and led rise to the Orphan Train. Prior to the Orphan Train's appearance in the US, unwanted children either found themselves in private orphanages or simply lived homeless on the streets. If you want to go even further back, say to medieval times, you had the Visigothic Code, under which children were basically treated like trash. You don't want your kid? Just leave him outside. You found a kid outside? Congratulations! He's yours. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Liberal nation

What makes a nation liberal? The Netherlands has been claimed by political analysts as the most liberal nation in terms of legalizing same-sex marriage, euthanasia, use of cannibals, and sex tourism. If not, which other nations has claimed as the most liberal nation in the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.66.58 (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing you mean "legalizing the use of cannabis", not "cannibals". - Lindert (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that a national being liberal in the modern sense would be having the greatest amount of socially liberal laws. I think that some other Western European countries are very liberal, though I'm not sure if any are as liberal as the Netherlands. If I have any errors in my post, please let me know. Futurist110 (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, a long history of being liberal does, but, of course, this leads to the Q of how it started in the first place. It might come down to individual leaders, or it might relate to periods of deprivation (starvation, military attack, etc.) where everyone had to cooperate to survive. Religion (or lack thereof) also plays a role, as many religions say there is only one way to live, and anyone different should be punished (such as homosexuals). In the case of the Netherlands and nations further north, they remained pagan until relatively late, and the Protestant Reformation hit relatively early, so they weren't influenced by the intolerance of medieval Catholicism as heavily as those nations in Southern Europe. StuRat (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Britain after the repeal of the corn laws and Catholic emancipation was the most classically liberal of all countries. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that may be a good example of a nation going from extremely conservative (executing starving children for stealing food) to liberal in a very short time. I wonder if authors like Dickens changed public opinions. StuRat (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"Liberal" in this sense is not opposed to "conservative", so that's a non-sequitur. Medeis, I would have thought the US in the late 19th century (gilded age) was more liberal? --Trovatore (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

In that case, what term do you use to mean the attitude that all criminals should be executed, as opposed to the liberal view that all criminals can be reformed ? StuRat (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Penal philosophy is a separate political dimension. A wide range of approaches are consistent with liberalism, from hardcore retributionist to deterrence/incapacitation-based to rehabilitationist. I tend to take the second approach, myself, because as an antistatist liberal I don't trust the state to get either retribution or rehabilitation right, and don't think they're its proper role anyway. --Trovatore (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think they go together. I can't imagine a society which both executes petty thieves and allows all the things listed in the original post. StuRat (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

er, "as an antistatist", who would you entrust with these things, if not the state? Individuals? Just curious. 92.226.89.214 (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Great Britain didn't have Jim Crow. The treatment of Ireland was, of course, abominable. The economy in the US was freeest between 1865 and 1890 when the first anti-trust legislation was passed, although railroad subsidies were a huge corruption. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

StuRat is a bit confused as usual. The area of the modern Netherlands was Christianized at least 700 to 1000 years before the Reformation; a bit "late" I suppose, but a millennium of influence is rather a lot (there was even a Dutch pope.) In the modern Netherlands, the largest single religion is actually still Catholicism (per Religion in the Netherlands). What does medieval Catholicism have to do with the Netherlands' current liberal reputation? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The "as usual" dig is an inappropriate personal attack. But, leaving that aside, it was medieval Catholicism which was highly intolerant. Both early Christianity and many of the modern forms are far more tolerant. StuRat (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well that's not true, but even if it was, what does that have to do with the Netherlands? Sure, the Reformation proceeds from Catholicism...but then what? Do you think the Reformed types of Christianity that the Netherlands produced were happily tolerant of homosexuality, drugs, and sex tourism? What about other countries that are currently liberal and tolerant but are also largely (or traditionally largely) Catholic? Same-sex marriage is legal in Spain, for example. The question has little to do with how intolerant or tolerant "medieval Catholicism" may have been. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

What's not true ? In addition to the attitudes of religion towards tolerance, there's also the degree of control held by the Church. If they are the only game in town, then they can damn well do as they please, but, after the Reformation, they had to be wary of pushing people away from Catholicism into Protestantism or other religions (or none at all), so needed to be more tolerant, for their own preservation. Practicality sometimes overcomes doctrine. StuRat (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The Netherlands lost most of its colonial empire and non-Dutch natives of its former colonies migrated to the Netherlands. This required the goverment to integrate them into the society.

Does the Netherlands accept refugees (from outside its former colonies) to migrate there?

See Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and her shameful mistreatment. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Does the Netherlands have guest-workers like Germany with its Turkish guest-workers?
Sleigh (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The Netherlands accepts refugees if it can be plausibly demonstrated it would be unsafe for them to return to their country of origin. In addition, non-refugees can stay in the Netherlands while they have a job there. After having worked in the Netherlands for a certain length of time, they become eligible for citizenship. - Lindert (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of cannibals? Doesn't sound very liberal to me.  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not? nobody is forcing you to use cannibals. Everyone can choose for themselves whether they prefer to use cannibals or not. Isn't that the essence of 'liberalism'? - Lindert (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. You've convinced me, Lindert. I've decided to use cannibals to ghost write the next instalment (Volume 9: The Years of Anguish) of my gripping 27-volume autobiography. That's certainly a load off my mind. It'll be available in all decent bookshops, just as soon as I can figure out what to legally give my ghost writers for their supper. Thanks again. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"Liberal" is an awful adjective. It has far too many meanings different around the world. It's used as a pejorative in some places, particularly the USA. In Australia, the two biggest political parties are the Labor Party, and unquestionably more conservative Liberal Party. Many readers will think they know what the OP meant in using the word, but have completely different ideas. I wish I knew what we were discussing here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

They gave examples making it clear that they are talking about social liberals, not economic liberals. StuRat (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think StuRat may have a point in that the starting point was the Reformation (he's wrong about the Netherlands not being "influenced by the intolerance of medieval Catholicism" as they were a Spanish colony at the time - nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition). Our WP article History of religion in the Netherlands says "Because the Netherlands had ceded from Spain over both political and religious issues, it practiced certain forms of tolerance towards people of certain other religions and opened its borders for religious dissenters (Protestants and Jews) from elsewhere, while maintaining its persecution and later discrimination against native Catholics. Descartes for instance lived in the Netherlands for most of his adult life." Alansplodge (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say they weren't influenced at all, just to a lesser extent than, say, Italy. StuRat (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Euthanasia is a really good thing as far as fascists are concerned, and legal "protection" of gay marriage (rather than the right to nominate a next of kin) is an expansion of the state control of the lives of those who want to discriminate against renting to homosexuals or providing their partners with health insurance coverage. And what sort of sex-tourism are we talking about? The SE Asian kind? Focus on these topics is more a question of anti-Christianism than about libertarianism, except perhaps for the cannibals. μηδείς (talk) 04:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"Focus on these topics is more a question of anti-Christianism than about libertarianism" - I can't tell if you are serious, but that is absurd. Particularly since there isn't really a strong consensus among Christians on these topics, and only Christians strongly associate the morality of sex, marriage and euthanasia with Christianity. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably the only way of objectively answering this would be to carry out surveys in different countries asking people if they see themselves as 'liberal'. Of course, you then have the problem that the word has different connotations in different places, and won't have a direct translation into some languages. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I am 'queer' and an atheist myself, but there are plenty of good classical liberal reasons to oppose legalizing euthanasia or instituting so-called "gay marriage". Issues in the US like tearing down crosses in public monuments and such is not liberalism, so much as fanatic iconoclasm. I am not interested in debating, but my basic point is that most of the current left's non-economic policies are focused on opposing traditional/religious stands on issues as such. The booing against restoring the word "God" to the US Democratic platform in their recent convention speaks to that. In any case, the OP is entitled to define his terms however he wants. μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Booing against restoring "God" to the platform is evidence that people don't think their party should be discussing particular religious ideas in its platform. It is not evidence that opposition to Christianity plays a significant role in their views on issues completely unrelated to religion. There are many Christian groups who support marriage equality, while you, an atheist, are opposed to it, which should surely make you question whether that debate is really about religion. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually, no. There was no theological discussion in the platform, just the mention of the word. And marriage equality is rather a strange notion to bring up. No state has a law preventing homosexuals from getting married if someone will have them. Look up Jim McGreevey and Michael Huffington, for example. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

September 9

Shinnoke and Oke

Why did the Americans found it necessary to limit the size of the Japanese Imperial Family and abolished the shinnoke and the oke families in the Imperial Household Law after World War II? Can the Japanese government in future restore the shinnoke and oke families to their titles?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

With the Japanese emperor being purely a symbolic one following WW2, the need for such a large, extended lineage of royals was lessened. And having an excess of royals supported by the state puts an undo undue burden upon it. StuRat (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

So the Occupation undid it. —Tamfang (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. Computers have apparently rotted my brain. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Monarchy in post-WWII Japan

Were there any plans for the Americans to abolished the Japanese monarchy and replace it with a Republic after World War II since worship and fanaticism for the Japanese Emperor was a big reason for some of the action of the Japanese people during WWII?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there were any plans, but the U.S. figured out that abolishing the Japanese monarchy would piss off the Japanese people much more and thus decided to turn Japan into a constitutional monarchy instead. Futurist110 (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, this was considered, and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender gave the Allies that option: "The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the State shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers...". The main concern was that there might be continued resistance after the surrender. It was felt that the Japanese Emperor could serve a purpose, if he spoke publicly and asked all Japanese to stop fighting: [19]. If, however, he encouraged resistance in any way, then the Allies would have abolished the monarchy. StuRat (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Remember that by late 1944 the overwhelming fear of the U.S. wasn't Japan but Soviet influence in the far east. It is documented as one of the top if not the main reason FDR/Truman dropped both bombs--as a strong statement to the Soviets that we would protect parts of Asia from communism. By the time of the USS Missouri signing the military leadership was focused on using any and all means available in Japan to strengthen U.S. influence there for years to come, when there is the Soviet bear in front of you issues about some papertiger toothless emperor become how we can use that mean to the blocking soviet end. Marketdiamond (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, it was mostly MacArthur who played the biggest role in retaining the Monarchy in Japan. In his role as Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (an article which has a LOT of good information to answer this question), MacArthur was given wide latitude in shaping post-war Japan, Constitution_of_Japan#Drafting_process has a lot of information on how the post-war Japanese government was constituted, and it was basically MacArthur with the big picture, with the actual text left to a few underlings of his. The reason why Japan is still a Monarchy has a lot to do with MacArthur's influence. I can't find his exact rationale right now, but I do remember reading several times in several places that he meant to maintain the Monarchy to give the Japanese people something to rally around. He did wish to build them back up again, and the Monarchy gave them some focus for their national pride. --Jayron32 03:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

See also Potsdam Declaration and Surrender of Japan. Reading the latter of these two articles suggests the continued role of Hirohito as Emperor was the only path to surrender that the "doves" in the Japanese government would accept - including Hirohito himself. It must have seemed a small price for the Western Allies to accept, against a rushed invasion of the Japanese home islands (before the Soviets got there) and the casualties they expected to suffer, estimated at between 1.4 and 4 million. Alansplodge (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

But, as I noted above, the surrender document did give the Allies the right to abolish the monarchy, if they wished to do so. Was an oral promise made that, so long as he behaved, Hirohito could keep his throne ? StuRat (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Greatest Age Difference Between Meeting a Famous Person and One's Own Death

Jeanne Calment met Vincent van Gogh in 1888, when she was 13. Van Gogh committed suicide in 1890, and Calment died 107 years after van Gogh died and 109 years after meeting him. Calment died in 1997 at the age of 122.45, and she probably had memories of van Gogh right up until her death. Has anyone ever met a famous person when young and exceeded either of these two time differences (between meeting a famous person/having that famous person die and one's own death)? Futurist110 (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine that given we are speaking of 10s of millions of people that "met" celebrities at 6 months, 1 or 2 years old odds say there should be at least a few that did exceed it. Since its about any private non-famous person meeting a famous person would we even know for sure about some private person in Iowa that died at 102 and met say Mark Twain at 1 years old? Marketdiamond (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

107>101 and 109>101. Futurist110 (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

LOL your inferring I can't calculate . . . doesn't matter the law of big numbers takes over here, how many hundreds of newborns did Mark Twain meet in the final year of his life . . . Einstein, Jim Thorpe, Lincoln, Genges Kahn, Emperor Constantine, Tsun Tszu, Jesus, Mohammed, Noah . . . biiiiig numbers. :-) Marketdiamond (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Would be interested if someone did find a documented case of it, but the absence of evidence doesn't necessarily prove anything ;-). Marketdiamond (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah let me see if I can find a documented case of it. Futurist110 (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Futurist, what possible encyclopedic resource do you imagine can address your question? Are you afraid we are running out of questions here? Or is this a result of your OR on the weed and IQ question? μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

What exactly does weed and IQ have to do with this question or with me in general? Anyway, as for a source for this, a news source (such as a website, magazine, or newspaper) might work. Futurist110 (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Adam met god pretty much as soon as he was created, and lived for about 900+ years after the fact. What a bizarre question this is. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Except Adam didn't meet God or live 900+ years. Futurist110 (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

As above, I agree this is a pretty silly question - there are perhaps a few a hundred people known to have lived up to or over 110 years, and the odds are presumably good that at least one of them encountered someone who was famous then, or would go on to be famous, in infancy. On the other hand, isn't this getting at the heart of the reason we're fascinated with extremely long-lived people? The sense of a connection to the past - that we can meet a person who saw or experienced or remembers something vastly long ago. So I guess it's interesting as a question, in some ways... Andrew Gray (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I have found the answer that would beat Calment for longest time different between meeting a famous person and one's death--Alphaeus Philemon Cole "met" his father Timothy Cole when he was a baby and died 112 years later. Also, Katherine Plunket probably met her great-grandfather William Plunket when she was a baby, toddler, and/or very small child and died 108+ years later. I know that it's kinda cheating to use family, but oh well. Futurist110 (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Converts to Judaism in Areas Under Nazi Control During World War II

What did the Nazis do to people who were ethnically non-Jewish but who converted to Judaism at some point in their lives? Were they killed immediately, were they forced to do hard labor, or were they allowed to denounce their Jewish religion in exchange for getting their lives spared? I know that ethnicity was the main benchmark that Nazis used to determine Jews, rather than religion. Thus people like Edith Stein and Irene Nemirovsky were killed despite being Christians by religion. Futurist110 (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that "Aryan" converts would be treated as "traitors to their race", so just as badly. StuRat (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

What if they claimed that they were "seduced" by their Jewish lovers and that they were tricked into accepting Judaism and are actually hardcore Aryans (assuming that the converts were ethnically German/Dutch/English/Scandivanian) and anti-Semites? Futurist110 (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

In light of what we've been discussing on the Talk page, I'm sure StuRat didn't mean to suspect his answer, but has a good citation he's willing to share with us all. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

As per the discussion there, I tend to agree with the suggestion to make it known when you are giving your opinion. The "I suspect" should make that quite clear. StuRat (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the "suspect" absolves the referencelessness of the answer, but not its timing. If you don't know, there's no need to be the first to speculate. The question will be here for days. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) That's OK as far as it goes, which is about a half an inch. The OP wants to know what actually happened historically. Your (or anyone's) suspicions will never fit that bill, as they would always need to be confirmed or dis-confirmed by reference to the actual historical record. So why not just go straight there? Imagine a history of a major conflict or major country or time period, in which the author made constant reference to his "suspicions" about stuff? He'd be laughed out of town and his name as a historian would be lower than mud. Basically, for questions like this, if you are unwilling or unable to track down a cite or at least provide a link to a suitable WP article, the only proper option open to you is silence. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If your concern is that I wasted the OP's time, you've just wasted far more of it. StuRat (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(after I picked my jaw up off the floor) Continued at your talk page. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

According to writers such as Raul Hilberg, the treatment of converts was often arbitrary. There are instances of people with four German grandparents who converted to Judaism and perished. Even stranger, a woman who married a Jew and converted, was widowed, reconverted back to Christianity, and remarried and had a child with the second Aryan husband would be Aryan, but her son of fully German blood was considered a Mischlinge. More discussion can be read at this link:[20].

The Nazis made a great deal out of the purported "deviance" of Jewish men and their "hunger" for Aryan blood. Women married to or in loving relationships with Jewish men were often shaved bald and made to parade in the streets wearing a sign that provoked abuse (or worse). The only way for a German woman to avoid that would be to claim rape: in that case one would expect the Jewish man to be arrested and quietly killed. German men who had sex with Jewish women could be convicted of race defilement. This deterred consensual sex but not rape, as the easiest way for a rapist to duck the charge would be to murder the victim. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Related question, with a little setup: In the (great) film La vita è bella, Roberto Benigni plays a Jewish man who marries a non-Jewish woman (played by the lovely Nicoletta Braschi, Benigni's real-life wife). When the Nazis take him and their son off to one of the camps, Braschi's character insists on going with them and sharing their fate, and the Nazis accomodate her. Are there any documented examples of that sort of thing happening? --Trovatore (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Your premise that Jews were killed is false before 1942. Most Jews weren't killed before the Final Solution in 1942 and one million Jews were executed before 1942.
Sleigh (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not following you. Who claimed that most of the Jews were killed before 1942 ? Are you responding to a post that has subsequently been removed ? StuRat (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sleigh's comment contradicts itself -- first he says that Jews were not killed before 1942, and then in the very next sentence he admits that "one million Jews were executed before 1942". So which is it? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

In the 9 years before 1942, one million Jews were killed including pogroms though progroms killed Jews before the Nazis came to power. 4.9 million Jews were killed in the 3 years of the Final Solution.
Sleigh (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sleigh, the first person in this thread to mention 1942 was you. Whose premise are you trying to correct? --Dweller (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Minorities in France

What are the largest minorities in France? --168.7.238.231 (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The French census doesn't ask about or record race and religion but a marketing company called Solis (look at Demographics_of_France#Ethnic_groups) made some estimates and concluded that the correct answer to your question is Maghrebis, or people from the Maghreb, who are generally either Arabs, Berbers, or a combination of both of these ethnic groups. Futurist110 (talk) 05:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It's complicated because people don't necessarily stay minorities. For instance there are a lot of people in France who came from Poland, Italy, Spain or Portugal, or whose parents or grandparents came from those countries, or one of their parents or grandparents did. Those people quite often identify much more as French than as their heritage nationality. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Judith. The estimates from Solis are from 2009, so they might certainly change in the future. Futurist110 (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

What's your definition of minority? Surely the largest minority is either males or females — obviously it's statistically impossible for precisely 50% of the population to be male and precisely 50% to be female, so one or the other must be in the minority, but both are close enough to 50% that it would be impossible for there to be a larger minority. Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

My definition of minority for this question is a racial or ethnic minority. Futurist110 (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Widest river bisecting a city?

Is there somewhere one can find a list comparing characteristics of rivers bisecting major cities? I would like to know which city has a river flowing through it at the greatest width. For my question this excludes estuaries, bays, etc., and both banks should be considered part of the same city. I tried browsing the lists in Longest bridge, but most of the bridges don't fit these criteria. --101.109.212.23 (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The highest volume river (by far) and according to many measures the widest river is the Amazon River, so that would be a good first check to see if any municipalities along it lie on both sides of it. A good candidate may be Manaus which is at the confluence of two of the Amazon's largest tributaries, though I don't know how the corporate borders compare to the rivers in question. --Jayron32 11:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This list gives the names of some cities worth checking. (It does not include U.S. cities.) Without looking at each one of these on a map, I do not know for sure how many of these are divided and how many are on one shore only. Many cities were at one time divided, but in relatively recent times the jurisdiction on one side was made a separate city (e.g., Washington, DC). I would suggest prime candidates for the city with the widest dividing river would be London (by the Thames) or New Orleans (by the Mississippi).    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 12:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The Thames in London isn't very wide, you can walk across a bridge in 2 minutes or less. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

As a starter for ten, the Árpád Bridge is the widest in Budapest over the Danube, and is either 928m or 981 m long, depending on which part of our article you believe. --Viennese Waltz 13:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, that would put Budapest ahead of New Orleans. The Danube is ~900m / ~3,000ft, while the Mississippi at New Orleans is ~600m / ~2,000ft wide.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 13:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Further downstream, the Pančevo Bridge in Belgrade seems to span 1,134m of the river. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course, all these bridges may be red herrings. The OP asked for width of rivers, not length of bridges. We're assuming that the two can be equated, but it's quite possible that there could be a stretch of river which is not bridged and which is wider than those which are bridged. --Viennese Waltz 15:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - in fact, it's likely, as you'll probably choose to build a bridge over the shortest possible span, all other things being equal. However, it seems a decent proxy for river width in the absence of other data. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean to exclude the Bosphorus splitting Istanbul ? According to our article, "Its maximum width is 3,420 m (1.85 nmi) between Umuryeri and Büyükdere Limanı, and minimum width 700 m (0.38 nmi) between Kandilli Point and Aşiyan." StuRat (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, seeing as the Bosphorus is not a river but a strait, I don't understand why you could possibly think it could be included. --Viennese Waltz 14:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I certainly do, as those defs overlap. For example, the Detroit River could arguably be called a strait, in that it connects two lakes. StuRat (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

They may overlap in the case of the Detroit River, but it's pretty unarguable that the Bosphorus is a strait and not a river, so my point stands. --Viennese Waltz 07:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Ditto New York; the Narrows between Staten Island and Brooklyn is a tidal strait, not a river. I had initially wondered if the Hudson might qualify, but the west bank of the Hudson isn't in NYC proper. If we're willing to be a little flexible on the requirement of "the same city" - many metropolitan areas that would be treated as one jurisdiction in Europe remain officially separate in the US - then you could count the Hudson; it seems to be a bit over 1100 m wide at the George Washington Bridge. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I know that on the Ohio River the widest point is near Louisville, Kentucky, not sure if that qualifies for a world record. Marketdiamond (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC

Arwel Parry, 2 minutes over the Thames, I'm gonna have to check that out! Marketdiamond (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I found this great website: http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/riverthames/facts.htm with the widths of the Thames at different places. Of them, Teddington is in the west of (Greater) London, London Bridge is obviously in Central London, Woolwich is in the east of London, and Gravesend beyond London to the east. As you'll see, the river widens out a lot as it flows east, but nowhere in London does it compare with Shanghai or Belgrade mentioned below. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The Yangpu Bridge in Shanghai just edges out the Pancevo Bridge in Belgrade mentioned above, with a span over the river proper of 1,172m. But do you consider the Yangtze in Shanghai to be an estuary? 184.147.128.34 (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

While looking up the Jiangdong Bridge in Hangzhou (1,595 m), I found this site: Structurae. It has a list of bridges by main span and might be a helpful starting point. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Still in China, now I find the Wuhan Baishazhou Yangtze River Bridge with a span of 3,586 m. But still can't find any claims of longest/widest, so I'm sorry this has not been more helpful. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• It would be absurd to argue that the Hudson river empties to the Atlantic Ocean via Arthur Kill or the very strongly south-flowing East River. Hence the Narrows is the southern extension of the Hudson, (most major rivers are tidal at their mouths--the Delaware River is tidal as far north as the inland city of Philadelphia) and the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge is so far the best candidate span within one city. μηδείς (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Reform, Conservative parties in Israel

I know that there are Orthodox Jewish political parties in Israel but is there any political parties in Israel that serves or advocates the Jews who are Reform, Reconstructionist and Conservative? -- 16:10, 9 September 2012‎ 65.92.155.47

Kadima, Labor, and Likud appeal more to secular-minded Jews than the ultra-Orthodox parties. Yisrael Beitenu appeals to secular Jews as well, but primarily to those who are either of Soviet origin or those who are ultra-nationalist. Futurist110 (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

65.92.155.47 -- Traditionally, non-Orthodox forms of Judaism have been quite weak in Israel, with no representation in the official government rabbinate, and sometimes denied recognition (or threatened to be denied recognition) as Judaism at all. The political polarity is more between secular (חופשי) and Orthodox... AnonMoos (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "חלוני"? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should. That's the proper name. Either it was a typo, or AnonMoos is trying to say that the secular are more liberated (חופשי means free). --Activism1234 04:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, secular-minded Jews in Israel who group together politically to avoid the impositions of the religious often call themselves חופשי (though of course that's not the literal or basic meaning of the word). There's something about this in article Hatikvah (oddly). AnonMoos (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that Meretz is pretty much radically secular, as they campaign on many issues that even secular people feel uncomfortable about (driving on Yom Kippur, for example). But I don't think any particular party advocates specifically for any group, other than Shas for Sephardic Orthodox Jews. As said above, Kadima, Labor, Likud, etc, are all for the general public, and most Israelis are secular Jews, so the ruling government would thus largely be chosen by secular Jews and would be representing them. --Activism1234 19:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Cory Monteith

Does anybody know to which branch of the Canadian military the father of Cory Monteith belongs? Thank you. AmericanMarinee (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

According to this, "his dad was a rifle sergeant in the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry". - Karenjc 18:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!!! AmericanMarinee (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Question about the Columbine massacre

I have a question regarding the Columbine massacre. I just read Eric Harris' journal and in November 1998, he wrote how much he would like to have "animalistic" sex with a person, and he writes on to state that he would like to "taste human flesh", a cannibalistic rant according to acolumbinesite.com. My question is: Should we add Category:American cannibals to their article? AmericanMarinee (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be the week for cannibal references here.

No, unless there's evidence he actually ate human flesh, he cannot be regarded as a cannibal. Someone who expressed a wish to kill his mother-in-law but who very unfortunately never quite got around to it is not classified as a murderer. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You mean "very fortunately never quite got around to it". Futurist110 (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That depends on his view of mothers-in-law.  :) Dismas|^(talk) 20:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I loved my late ex-mother-in-law dearly, but in my post above I chose my words carefully, as I always do. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Your response is the answer to the question. To put it another way, admiring Jeffrey Dahmer is not the same thing as being Jeffrey Dahmer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting how this "brand new" user is picking fights between Canada and Australia and asking sophisticated questions about categories and such only three days after having been born. Why are we feeding this cuckoo in the nest? μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

What's your problem with me?, I am not breaking any rules, and I've already contributed to the ITN section. You are quite intolerant I see. Unfortunately. AmericanMarinee (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Medeis, since AmericanMarinee has gotten an account, he has gotten a nomination posted on the front page of ITN, helped out and asked intriguing questions on the reference desk, and has improved some articles. That's a very harsh attack you're making on him, and for no reason. He hasn't broken the rules, and I think his question is very good - not cuckoo at all. Please don't continue this again, you're a great experienced editor and there's no point in it. --Activism1234 21:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Just curious, but what's ITN? In the news? Futurist110 (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:ITN/C. --Activism1234 22:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems a reasonable question, especially since AmericanMarinee hasn't been around long, he's not aware of Wikipedia's categorization rules. Generally, more categories is not always better, as eventually you reach the point where you get swamped with so many categories (and so many tangentially related articles within a category) that the entire system becomes useless. It is best to keep articles within only those categories that they are absolutely the most relevent to. Thus, the Donner Party is an obvious addition to the Canibals category because the Donners are primarly known for being canibals. Hardly anyone will have pored over Eric Harris' journal in such exacting detail to know that he wrote about canablism, and writing about canabilism in one's diary is a VERY tenuous connection to the category, it simply isn't helpful to categorize it that way. --Jayron32 23:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Books on Indophobia and anti-Pakistan sentiments

Is there any books on Indophobia and Anti-Pakistan sentiments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.64.46 (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a wikiarticle on the latter topic with some books listed in the references also one good place to find books on any topic is Google Books search. I see a few results immediately on Google. Hope this helps. Marketdiamond (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Good, reliable articles/online pages about the 2004 and 2008 U.S. presidential elections

I found good online pages summarizing all U.S. Presidential elections from 1936 to 2000, but I need some help with 2004 and 2008 for this article-- Historical polling for U.S. Presidential elections. Thank you. For the record, I just want one or two general sources, not say, 10 or 20 sources. Futurist110 (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There are tons of sites, as a politics junkie I have always found Real Clear Politics as the most comprehensive (type in 2008 in the URL for the other election), also CNN AllPolitics is very cool, not sure if they archive thou. Marketdiamond (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. However, I'm sorry but I should have been more clear. This is my fault. I meant "are there any websites which describe the 2004 and 2008 Presidential campaigns in great detail (rather than the polling from those elections)?". I already got enough poll data for this article. And Yes, I'm fully aware of how the 2004 and 2008 campaigns went and how these elections turned out, but I still need a website that provides a brief summary of each of those campaigns. Futurist110 (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

USA Today may help, did you check on CNN AllPolitics? Marketdiamond (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

September 10

Title of WW2 novel

I'm trying to find a WW2 novel that I've read a long time ago. I don't remember the title or the author's name, but here's the description: The story takes place in occupied Denmark in 1943 or 1944; the main character is a Danish schoolgirl named Anne-Marie Johannsen, who has to help get her Jewish friend Ellen Rosen out of the country; and some of the plot events include the following: The Germans perform a nighttime search of the Johannsens' home, during which time Anne-Marie is forced to rip off Ellen's necklace with the Star of David in order to hide her Jewish ancestry; at this or another time (I don't remember for certain), Ellen identifies herself as Lise Johannsen, Anne-Marie's older sister who was hit by a car (as it later turned out, Lise was purposely run over by the Germans during a Resistance meeting); and toward the end, Anne-Marie is stopped by a German patrol with attack dogs on the way to the fishermen's wharf, and uses a special handkerchief to neutralize the dogs' sense of smell. Does anyone know which book I'm looking for? Thanks in advance! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Number the Stars. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

US post-WWI "trench-war litterature" ?

Hello learned humanitarians ! Can you tell me which were in the USA the equivalents of, say, Remarque's Im Westen nichts Neues and Barbusse's Le Feu ? Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers. T.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingways A Farewell to Arms comes to mind. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Sun Also Rises if I remember correctly had elements of the devastation and aftereffects of WWI. Marketdiamond (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Given the USA joined World War I pretty late, and its soldiers saw most of their action after the entrenched front had been largely broken, there wasn't such a vast and traumatizing experience of trench warfare among American soldiers. Hemingway joined the conflict as a volunteer ambulance driver, and thus was exposed to some combat action on the Italian front, but his experience was very different from Barbusse or Remarque's, enlisted men who spent considerable time on the front lines. --Xuxl (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Could a former two-term President run for election if a repealing of terms limits was also on the ballot?

Sorry for the lengthy title, my question is this. Say Bill Clinton decided to go for a third term, and managed to get a national referendum to repeal term limits on the ballot to be voted on the same day as the presidential election. Could he run for office before the referendum was voted on, on the understanding that if he won he would only take office if the referendum was passed as well, or could he not run again until the next election when the new rules were in force? If he could run hoping for a 'Yes' vote on the referendum, what would happen if he won the election but lost the referendum? Would the second place candidate win? Many thanks, 130.88.135.70 (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a national referendum in the U.S. (see Article Five of the United States Constitution for information on how its amended). But if such a think exists in the future (there has been some push made for allowing nationwide referendums) I'd assume Clinton wouldn't be allowed on since it's likely the change wouldn't go into effect until the next election. Hot Stop (Edits) 14:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What if Obama passed an executive order? 79.172.242.173 (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

130.88.135.70: "Could he run for office before the referendum was voted on, on the understanding that if he won he would only take office if the referendum was passed as well, or could he not run again until the next election when the new rules were in force? If he could run hoping for a 'Yes' vote on the referendum, what would happen if he won the election but lost the referendum? Would the second place candidate win?" . . . if a law like this was ever enacted (overturning term limits for presidents and retroactive to former presidents) then Congress would fill those 2,500 pages with every possible extrapolation. When you ask all those questions it becomes partly pie in the sky, imagine all the national debate and discussion on health care for 6-12 months, for 12 months we would all know more about the impact of non-term limits then we would ever want to, and Congress would write any answer to those questions it wanted to, so the short answer is if any law like that was passed all of the above and none of the above to whatever extent Congress wants to enact those stipulations, the oldest saying in Washington is watching sausage being made is actually easier to follow then watching a bill become law, well that and a camel is just a throughbred racehorse cobbled together by a Congressional committee lol. Marketdiamond (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Except that it's a Constitutional Amendment that would need to be written (because the two term limits are in the 22nd Amendment) which isn't quite the same thing as writing a law. Congress can propose an Amendment, and then the legislatures of the states can ratify it or not. It's not the same thing as them writing thousand page laws, and most amendments are quite short. A more likely scenario is Congress passing something like the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution, and then maybe adding a clause that says "this is retroactive to past presidents" or maybe "Congress may come up with the rules as to how this applies to past Presidents" or something like that. But not thousands of pages of stipulations. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that the 22nd Amendment controls who can be elected. It doesn't say anything about who can be on the ballot. There have certainly been presidential candidates on the ballot in one or more states who were ineligible to be elected, and where this fact was perfectly well known to everyone in advance (for example Róger Calero). --Trovatore (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The simplest way to undo the limit would be to enact an Amendment saying "The 22d article of amendment is repealed." That alone would suffice to relieve Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon and Eisenhower of the disqualification. If Congress wanted to preserve the bar for past Presidents, it would have to replace A22 with something more complex and absurd: "The 22d article of amendment is repealed; but no person who, between the effective date thereof and that of this article, was twice elected to the Presidency or served six years as President ...." Or: "Section 1: The 22d article of amendment is repealed. Section 2: Congress may by law disqualify any person who has served more than N years as President from re-eligibility to that office." (Yeah, that'll fly!)

(Me, I'd replace the lifetime limit with a ban on consecutive terms.) —Tamfang (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, there's a reasonable answer to "would the second-place candidate win"? Let's assume that there were no "faithless electors", that all the electors of the ineligible candidate voted for him/her. Then, under the twelfth amendment their votes would be conveyed to the President of the Senate (that is, the Vice President), who would count them in the presence of a joint session of Congress. The votes for the ineligible candidate would not count, and therefore no candidate would have a majority of electoral votes.

That would leave it up to the House of Representatives, who would have to select among the top three finishers, except they couldn't pick the ineligible guy. So if only one other candidate got any electoral votes, then yes, the second-place candidate would win. --Trovatore (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

History of capital gains tax long-term holdings discount

Re [21] I noticed that when the long-term holdings discount on U.S. capital gains tax was abolished in 1984, a holding period of only six months was necessary to qualify. For some reason I thought it had been five years, maybe before that. Where can I find a table or graph of the rate of the capital gains tax, the long term holding discount percentage, and the qualifying holding period side-by-side? Is this something tax accountants would have handy, maybe? —Cupco 15:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Found this [22] Page 6 and on has some really pretty charts on rates and years, didn't search for holding period but it may have that too. Marketdiamond (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/TaxTimeline.htm has it - in the 1930s it was a "complicated" sliding time scale up to 10 years, then in the 1940s it was simplified to a period of just one year, where it stayed until 1984 (six months) and the long term holding discount was abolished in 1986. —Cupco 01:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Rationale behind women-only chess touraments?

What is the rationale behind women-only chess tournaments such as Women's_World_Chess_Championship? Gender has no impact on one's chess skills as far as I can tell. Would these gender-specific tournaments be considered sex discrimination? This question also applies to any other gender-specific tournament where athletic abilities is not a factor. A8875 (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

We had this question a few months ago, see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2012 May 17 for answers. To answer if it would be sex discrimination, well, yes by the basic definition of "discrimination", which merely means to make choices based on characterisics. Restrooms discriminate based on gender. The question I think you want to ask is if this represents unjustified sex discrimination. That I have no feeling on, but tautologically a single-gender based anything is exhibiting sex discrimination; and that doesn't automatically mean it is bad. My wife's gynecologist has a practice that discriminates overwhelmingly in favor of women clientelle. That's a fine sort of discrimination. --Jayron32 17:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe that most of the chess grand masters are male. This implies one or more of the following:

1) Males are better at chess. (Note that this doesn't mean they are more intelligent, in general, as males and females think differently.)

2) Females are less interested in competing in chess.

3) Females are discriminated against in some manner.

Having a separate competition can reduce or eliminate many of these potential issues. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet it's mostly that too few parents give their daughters chess sets to play with at a young age. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That would fall under #3. StuRat (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A8875 -- It's by no means clear to me that "Gender has no impact on one's chess skills". Intelligence testing has more or less established that men and women have the same average intelligence, but males have a greater range (standard deviation) of intelligences -- i.e. compared to women, there are both more male geniuses and more male morons. Also, chess uses skills (i.e. abstract geometric/spatial reasoning) which men tend to do better at (while women tend to do better at language skills etc. -- obviously with many individual exceptions to such generalizations)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The average woman tends to believe, at times anyway, that she married into the moron end of that bell curve. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"Hey girl... you look as though you have no Boutroses - and it happens that I have one to spare..."

With regards to Mr. Boutros Boutros Ghali. Before I had a cursory read of his article, my total knowledge of him could be surmised so: "Is/was a guy (poss. South American?) who was the secretary general of the UN several years ago. Has a name that sounds comical in my culture".

I was wondering - what is the story behind his name. Why did his parents name him 'Boutros Boutros'? Not trying to troll or be racial here - I just remember how hearing his name on TV always made people smile and laugh, the various jokes/one-liners about him such as the subject of this post (supposedly his favourite chat-up line). --146.90.92.245 (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe he was named after his grandfather Boutros Ghali, who was an earlier Prime Minister of Egypt. The name repetition is a bit "funny" sounding to western ears, but even Westerners have similarly repetitive names, i.e. William Carlos Williams, Phillip Phillips, Richard Rich, Dave Davies, etc. etc. --Jayron32 19:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

And his name apparently translates as "Peter Peter Expensive"... --TammyMoet (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

His last name is actually Boutros-Ghali. His full name is not much different, when you think about it, from Congressman Pete Peterson or from Secretary of Commerce Peter G. Peterson, who are both contemporaries. --Xuxl (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

They are supposed to have funny sounding names. Bus stop (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Funny to whom? Presumably, it's a fairly unremarkable name among Egyptian Coptics, especially if Tammy's translation is correct. All of the other Secretaries General have names that don't seem funny given their origins. --Jayron32 21:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, TammyMoet seems to be correct. Bus stop (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It was an oft repeated gag on the 1990s British comedy The Fast Show. One of the regular items was a spoof of a TV channel from an indeterminate Mediterranean country, where the presenters would gabble away in a pretend language that sounded vaguely Spanish / Italian / Greek; the only recognisable words were Chris Waddle and Boutros Boutros Ghali.[23] It was funnier than it sounds - there may be some clips on YouTube if you're intrigued. Alansplodge (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Now, some people's names are funny no matter what the context. Dick Trickle's race finishes were anounced on SportsCenter every week regardless of how well he did ("The race was won by Dale Earnhardt; Dick Trickle came in 25th place"), and it wasn't because he was all that great of a racecar driver. --Jayron32 23:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Although that is a double entendre rather than just sounding funny. Alansplodge (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Prince of Nassau Siegen

Charles Henry of Nassau-Siegen and Karl Heinrich von Nassau-Siegen - is this supposed to be the same person?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.161.119.26 (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The identical birth dates and similar names certainly imply so. If this is the case, the two articles should be merged. StuRat (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Since Charles Henry and Karl Heinrich are cognates, I'd say so. The newer article should be WP:HISTMERGEed into the older one, and the information from the two (which does not completely overlapped) should be combined into a single article. I've never done a History Merge, but many admins have, you could ask for help doing so at WP:AN. --Jayron32 19:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Should Canadians fear Iranian response to the severance of relations?

I'm from Edmonton, Alberta and I'm 20, I know that I may know nothing of politics, but I fear the Iranian reaction. Could there be a military action? Cooppeerr (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry then. Cooppeerr (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Their reaction just might be, "Who is this 'Canada', again?" 23:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"You mean Satan has a hat?" :) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

...perhaps a tuque ? Or maybe Canada is the little Devil on the Great Satan's shoulder, whispering evil ideas into it's ear. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I never thought to stumble upon anti-Canadian sentiment on Wikipedia. Cooppeerr (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not anti-Canadian sentiment. We have a bit of a jokey culture here on the Reference Desks, but it's often very easy to misinterpret online humour as something else. I know I've done it. The small type is usually a give-away. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Americans make fun of Canada, and even Canadians make fun of Canada. Meanwhile, a favorite comment from Drew Carey on Whose Line Is It Anyway?: "The points in the game mean nothing. They're like spy planes over Canada." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Coop, don't worry. Iran certainly isn't sending their military against you, and if they do, a slew of countries will come to the defense of Canada (although Canada has a good enough military in such a confrontation anyway). The only real threat I see is the use of terrorists to perpetrate a suicide bombing or other type of attack in Canada, via Iranian Revolutionary Guards or Hezbollah. Still, I don't think it's worth living your life in fear. This can happen in any country, look what happened in Bulgaria two months ago, when a bus full of Israeli tourists was blown up by a suicide bomber. In Bulgaria. Thailand and Greece also thwarted a terrorist plot which had Iranian links. But should Bulgarians or Thais or Greeks have lived their lives in fear, and continue to do so? Of course not. Should Canadians live their lives in fear? Of course not. And I don't even know if such a thing would happen - I'm just speculating. We have intelligence agencies for a reason - and while they can't always win all the time, most of the time they will, and it's just silly to live life in fear.

Hope this helps. --Activism1234 23:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

To be perfectly fair, Canadians have a lot more to fear from other Canadians than any Iranian, on average. Case in point, the recent dust up in Montreal. --Jayron32 00:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Canada has to be pretty far down the enemies list for Iran. That list would include Israel, the US, most of Europe, many of the Gulf nations, Pakistan, etc. So, judge for yourself the chances of an attack. StuRat (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but remember, the countries you mentioned would definitely have much more increased security and detailed intelligence than Canada, a country that doesn't expect anything from Iran. So if Iran wanted to send someone to attack Canada, it'd make perfect sense, and would be a lot easier for them to do than those other countries you mentioned (again - this is assuming Iran wants to do this). But yes, I agree - it's silly to live in fear. --Activism1234 00:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and similarly, Canadians don't expect anything from the US. If the US wanted to attack Canada, it would make perfect sense, because Canada would not be as prepared as North Korea, Iran, China, or Russia. --140.180.247.208 (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The old "fooled him with my seven-shooter" trick. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, no reason US would attack Canada, and I was giving only a possible scenario involving a bombing in response to the OP's question. --Activism1234 03:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not exactly unexpected. See Defence_Scheme_No._1A8875 (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There are reasons, if you consider sixth-largest oil-producing country in the world to be a reason. Of course, the only time the US would have any motivation to do so would be in some kind of highly unpleasant apocalyptic scenario where oil supplies from literally everywhere are somehow shut off. Such an attack would effectively dissolve NATO instantly, however, so only a madman would be willing to start such a war. This is all completely off topic, of course. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Except the U.S. has little motivation to do so, since U.S.-based oil companies already have access to that oil, and are heavily involved in extracting and refining it. For various reasons, it is controversial, but the article Keystone Pipeline should make it clear that, once completed, that project should mean that the U.S. has no real reason to invade Canada to get the oil since it's all going to end up in the U.S. anyways. --Jayron32 04:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

George Bush: "Canada ? Isn't that one of our northern states ?"

Aide: "No, sir, we aren't scheduled to invade and annex Canada until next year, sir." - Chilly Beach. StuRat (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't easily see Iran resorting to a terrorist act over something like ditching diplomatic relations. It just wouldn't seem logical. If Iran reacts, I assume it would be in (for example) the economic sphere, such as reducing the access of Canadian companies to Iranian oil projects. 58.111.230.117 (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As opposed to all those logical terrorist attacks everyone's always talking about? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There are some. The al Qaeda inspired 2004 Madrid train bombings seemed to succeed in getting Spain to withdraw from Iraq, for example. StuRat (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they didn't much care. According to the Canadian government, "In 2007, both countries reduced their representation to the Chargé level."[24] I.e. they couldn't be bothered to appoint full ambassadors. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that "couldn't be bothered" played any part in their decisions. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

September 11

Since the internet and public libraries have everything theoretical that's taught in college

Since every bit of theoretical knowledge at college can be learned for free at the public library or the internet, is there anything set up where they tell you what to learn that normally would be taught at college and from expensive textbooks, and one can just learn it on the internet that way to know as much as one would have learned from an expensive education? I don't mean the random selections of free courses, but the entirety listed and said "this is what is learned". Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Public libraries rarely hold the research collection or undergraduate teaching collection that a University library holds. Public libraries that break this rule (NLA Canberra, SLNSW Sydney, etc.) are called deposit libraries, or state libraries and are of a different grade. If you lived in Newcastle, Australia you would read in the University library, rather than the public library system (generally). The internet's "collection" is substantially worse than most university libraries, mainly in indexing, planned collection and access to journal articles. Assuming you could access an appropriate library (University or deposit), you could attempt to read following a curriculum. One problem with doing this is that academics guide students through a curriculum by introducing concepts to students in an ordered fashion aimed at inculcating understandings that allow for further understandings. I suggest this blog post as a review of an amateur-hour attempt at distance education: http://www.angrymath.com/2012/09/udacity-statistics-101.html . Next, most Universities supply tutorials or laboratories, where students engage in action based learning by performing knowledge. Finally, Universities provided assessment and examination, both as a review of work allowing better work in future, and as a way of certifying the knowledge gained. The "Reading course" where an individual student at a university reads material under supervision, plans their own assessment, and doesn't have access to lectures and tutorials typically results in a worse mark. Curriculum content, btw, is hard to come by for free; and, even if it includes a full copy of the assessment requirements including all prompts and questions, you're not going to get the feedback. Most courses vary in their content and assessment requirements and full Universities self-certify through a policing system which compares Course X to Course Y in the same institution, where students may reasonably take a course like X and a course like Y. Again, you're not going to get access to that review or context if you download random curriculum documents. Finally, most Universities inculcate disciplinary understandings of epistemology, knowledge creation and verification, and methods of expression. These learning outcomes aren't factual, but are "thinks like a historian." The University provides a model in the academics, and variant examples in your peers, that learning alone won't provide. Trying to read to match your current understanding of a particular model or ideal outcome will be much much harder without examples lying around (or being reinforced in a tutorial or lab) of how a chemist measures and extrapolates, or how a literary critic confirms a hypothesis by argument. Good luck, but a reading list and learning outcomes list isn't what you need. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

More to the point, there is more to learning than reading. If it were as easy as reading stuff, everyone would do it and be successful at it. A large part of learning comes from being able to interact with ones teachers, to have someone to bounce ideas off of, to have someone who can see what you are learning and help guide and direct that learning, the ability to correct you and teach you as you go. Like, when you think you understand something, but don't, they can fix that. If you have no one who really knows the material who can supervise, it is quite easy to go off course, and think you understand something, when you don't. I suspect that's a big part of the Dunning–Kruger effect; people who never get to interact with people who know more than them don't know that they misunderstand stuff. Sitting around reading books will only get you so far. At some point, you do need someone to tell what you've learned, so they can confirm that you are right, or if you aren't, they can correct you. --Jayron32 04:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Jayron32 brings an interesting point up in my mind (bouncing off it, in fact). Many working class people used to get an education through the union, the church (or anti-church), or the party. Public lectures used to be very popular. The more thorough-going education in this form involved both reading and discussion programmes. The communist Party School is one example of this. Now the old Leninist parties didn't have the best methodology or epistemology, but damnit they put people in rooms together with reading materials, curriculums and made them bounce off each other. Just pointing to, again, the interactive nature of education. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Until recently, one missing ingredient has been computers and software, which can make up for many of the deficiencies of reading alone:

1) They can detect your learning style and speed, and alter the curriculum accordingly, say by adding more remedial material for students who are struggling.

2) They can allow you to interact with other students via chat rooms, bulletin boards, etc.

3) Potentially, they can allow you to interact with an instructor, too. However, they either need to be a volunteers or we need to find a way to pay the instructor.

4) Many labs can be simulated online.

So, what's the hold up ? Well, it will take time to have all the curricula put online, especially if it's all to be done by volunteers. However, there are some initial attempts at it, like these classes: https://www.edx.org/courses. StuRat (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, sort of. Except there's no substitute for someone who can watch you work directly, and give you on-the-fly feedback. While technically, that is possible via the series-of-tubes, it turns out that most of the so-called online schools out there are little more than diploma mills, and a large proportion of them don't provide the same sort of training that traditional brick-and-mortar schools do. This NY Times article calls into question the efficacy of online school programs, and takes the cynical stance that the entire online education movement is primarily motivated by cost-saving and not by actual pedagogical success. That is, school districts and states are shuttling kids into online education because it is cheaper than actually teaching them with live human beings. Having seen the education system from the inside for most of my adult life, I'd have to say that there is more than a nugget of truth in that sentiment. this article in the Wall Street Journal is far more comprehensive, and also presents a rather dismal view of the online schooling system: it is rife with inconsistancy: some are actually decent programs with high amounts of teacher involvement, but the problem is that those good programs are swamped by the shitton of crappy online programs that are little more than reading quizzes taken online by students. It is quite impossible to seperate the wheat from the chaff in that system. It also notes that online students do significantly worse on standardized tests; while such tests are not the be-all-and-end-all of assessing educational outcomes, they are one measure, and they don't show that online schools do all that good of a job. I can't find it right now, but there have been several studies done tracking the job success of students from online schools, and IIRC, it doesn't look all that good either. I'm still looking. --Jayron32 06:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "for profit schools" tend to think of money first and students last, so I wouldn't expect much quality from them. The link I provided lists some free classes from MIT, Berkeley, and Harvard, and I suspect those classes will be better (once they get all the bugs worked out). StuRat (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I've gone through college before and while the practical aspects need in person teaching (I include math as practical too), most of it was listen to a professor and take notes and then go home and read a lot of stuff. Then re-read and memorize. And then the test comes and what everyone is tested on is based on theoretical stuff memorized. There are occasional projects but it's mainly just a rote memorization. The harder professors teach stuff in class and then have nothing in class is on the test, it's all from stuff not covered in the books. I'm certain I can find everything in overpriced textbooks on the internet, the problem however is that it's disorganized. It would work someone wrote a book with homework assignments basically saying "find out this, found out that" and people search, and then it tests them. I've personally not seen anything organized like that myself, a you'll know about the subject if you learn these aspects. Thanks. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, what you've hit upon is bad teaching in person. The solution to bad in-person teaching is not to replace it with teacherless learning. It's to actually replace it with quality, responsive teaching. It would be like saying "My toilet is always clogged and never flushes right, so I'll just crap in the woods from now on" If you replaced your malfunctioning toilet with a proper functioning one, it would be far better than abandoning the toilet altogether. Likewise with your educational experience. Yeah, you had shitty teachers. But that doesn't mean the teacher is superfluous. Just that yours sucked. --Jayron32 06:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well aside from practical learning, everything non-practical was the teacher lectured and we took notes. Or they show a film or something and we took notes. And that was class. In one of the Legally Blonde movies, her classes were all where they discussed the topic socratically all the time, but that was an Ivy league school and I've not seen that myself. And in fact all through middle school and high school, every teacher constantly drilled into us--take notes instead of just listening because in college every class is just taking notes. And then we go home and study our notes. I've even heard of professors that have a teacher's assistant prepare just read the professor's lecture notes while the professor rarely shows up to class. And as per your criticism of online schools, the whole reason things can be found for free on the internet, makes online schools largely a waste of money. All students would need is a list of material to learn and then someone could go to a free forum website and they could all discuss it if they have questions -- that's what a lot of companies do instead of tech support, just have forums. Then once the theoretical is learned, much shorter period of practical training is needed, which can be done by internships. ... of course I'm asking not to debate this or that, but to discover a feasible means for this to be a reality. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are several problems which occur in brick-and-mortar classes which could hopefully be eliminated in online classes. These include instructors who apparently don't speak English, don't speak loudly enough, can't write legibly, erase their notes before you can copy them, not being able to see from the back of the lecture hall, the instructor standing in front of his notes as you try to copy them, etc. I once had a robotics instructor derive some equations during several classes, then tell us to implement them to get straight-line motion out of our robotic arm, but nobody could make them work. Since that appeared to be the first time he ever derived those equations (no notes were used), I have to conclude that his equations were faulty. StuRat (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

My main motivation is just how expensive college is when I could get the knowledge for free online. Even my cheap community college in where I grew up quadrupled in price over the last 14 years. And I'm just seeing it add up and going "I put off all these expenses that cost a fraction of this money when I could get the information for free with a bit of hard work online." People have even scanned their college textbooks and created torrents out of them. I'm just, I could learn this myself for free and then get some unpaid internship at a company to learn the rest. It's basically like this scene in Goodwill Hunting (hopefully linking to youtube isn't taboo here). Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 08:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The system of higher education you describe is so vastly different from the post-UK post-1960s tutorial revolution system of mass higher education that I'm familiar with that I'm unable to respond to you in a sensible format. However, any attempt to conduct self-directed reading without an internalised research structure and without serious exposure to disciplinarity will result in, at best the kind of annoyingly incoherent didacticism seen in isolated self-directed learning. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in the company Coursera, which my University recently started offering classes through. Classes are taught by professors at good (not-for-profit) universities, to tens of thousands of students, for free. It remains to be seen how this type of education model works, but it will be interesting.Buddy431 (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is it Considered Indecent for a Woman to Expose Her Nipples?

In contrast to a man? Futurist110 (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It isn't in many cultures. In those where it is, it may have to do with their reproductive function (feeding babies), which men's nipples lack. And breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic, although men's beards are, too, and I can't think of any culture which feels the need to hide those. StuRat (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Tuaregs? -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting oddity. StuRat (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There's some information at Breast#Cultural_aspects as well as at Toplessness#Social_attitudes and Modesty#Generally-accepted_Western_norms. The answer is somewhat tautological: It is considered indecent because the cultural norms in many Western societies say that it is. Cultural norms don't necessarily have mechanistic "whys" the way that, say, a scientific law would have. A question like "Why does the light bulb glow when I flip the switch?" can be answered with diagrams and equations and references to scientific principles like electricity and resistance and materials science. Questions like "Why can't women show their nipples?" can be answered with lots of really complicated and dense discussions that distill down to "Just 'cuz" when you get down to it. You end up with a never ending recursion of "Why" questions, rather than any good core answer. --Jayron32 05:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, nipples being sexualized makes a bit more logical sense than, say, ankles, which oddly enough were at one point. StuRat (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

In Victorian times, ankles were actually the only part of the female body below the waist which was often publicly-visible under form-fitting clothing... AnonMoos (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, nipples are an erogenous zone for both men and women, so it doesn't explain the double standard the OP asks about. That is, men's nipples are as much fun as women's are, but men get to bare theirs in public, while women generally don't. --Jayron32 06:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's legal in New York state. http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/06/topless_bowery.php As for decent regardless to the law, well if she is attractive then in one way it's good because she's pretty but in another way it's bad because she's so distracting to men and it could get so bad it would cause traffic accidents. Though even if she was sub-a-cup and boring, it would still be considered indecent because it's unusual. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It is actually legal in many states. Most states don't make bearing chests strictly illegal, but that doesn't mean that cultural norms follow the law: people's expectation that women keep their nipples covered is a strong one, and may be a stronger impediment to bearing breasts than any law would be. As far as the rest of your answer, I think you seriously need to reassess your place here at a project like this. I'm not a woman, but I can see how many would be offended by your follow on comments, and you would do good to retract them. They are utter nonsense. --Jayron32 06:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean it as offensive or nonsense. It's a simple fact that people would react a certain way to being topless. If two men were topless and one was thin and hairless and the other was morbidly obese and hairy, would most people not react differently? And do men who go shirtless normally not in some degree of shape and with little body hair? And if a guy is really in shape and muscular, not just thin and plain would you expect women to react? And if another topless man is in his 90s would you expect people to slightly grossed out? I don't mean to offend, this is how reality is. And you can always test this experimentally if you think I am speaking "nonsense". Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And, conversely, if toplessness was the norm, it wouldn't cause accidents, as everyone would be used to it. StuRat (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

My guess: the intent of the rule is to forbid displaying breasts. Because it's not easy to define the boundaries of a breast in fair and objective terms, the prudes can't get all they want; but when the nipple appears, the prudes can say "Come on, you can't say that isn't an exposed breast." —Tamfang (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Going far beyond avoidance of exposing the female nipple to view, in the US it is extremely rare for even the mere hint of the shape of the nipple to be visible through clothing, with padded bras or padding under swimsuit tops designed to conceal. By contrast, after a famous 1976 Farrah Fawcett swimsuit poster, female nipple protrusion became part of US fashion to the point that department store mannequins got nipple shapes added so shoppers could see that a top would allow some hint of the underlying nips. Today in the US, (original research) nipple protrusion seems more common among women over 50 than in those under 30, who seem to view it as obscene. Edison (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And notice that, while male nipples are acceptable at the beach and a few other places, they are not acceptable in most places. Try walking into a restaurant or office shirtless and you are likely to be booted out. Even seeing the shape of male nipples is also considered to be "bad form", in most places. StuRat (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Can't "Insider trading" rules be easily evaded?

I'm no financial wizard, but the practical issue of enforcing insider trading rules in financial markets strikes me as odd. Evasion would seem dead easy.

Imagine I, as an investor, hear "insider" information that a certain stock is likely to soon experience a jump in price (e.g. a takeover offer). Would I just go and start buying up the stock? Hell no - I'd easily be caught.

What would appear all too simple to do, however, is place a "standing order" for the stock in the system designed to trigger at the next price notch upwards. (I'm sure there's a technical name for such an order, just not sure what it is). Essentially, it would allow you to "get in early" once the good news breaks (and the upward price jump starts), essentially still catching much of the price rise. Whilst buying pre-rise would be suspicious, this would simply look as if the investor is "buying into the rise" (which is totally normal and very common).

The opposite would seem to hold true as well. If I own stock, and I hear of (as-yet secret) bad news in the horizon, selling the stock might sound alarms. However, putting a "stop-loss order" on the stock (which would make it sell early in the plunge, once it hits, thus minimising my loss) would seem awfully harder to catch.

Would such actions still be illegal? And, if it is, how would regulators attempt to catch such things? What am I missing here? scratches head

(Note, I am not an investor, so this isn't a request for legal advice). 58.111.230.117 (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

From what I hear, there isn't any legal advice to be had; the authorities refuse to say what is and isn't insider trading, so they can punish it when they feel like it. —Tamfang (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting question, despite getting cute with how you trade in and how you trade out the ones who are usually caught are the serial abusers. Like almost every crime the criminal almost never gets caught the 1st or 3rd or even 8th time they commit it. Everything from bank robbers to random serial killers to shoplifters are because they get greedy, get over confident and there is even some evidence that it becomes addictive. Now if you are one of the 1 or 2% in a position to both financially and by word of mouth to trade inside on more than one stock, even if there are 2-3-4 ways to hide getting in and getting out by the 5th or 8th time your doing this it gets very suspicious very quick. As Robert DeNiro's character on Casino (betting follows many of the same rules as stock trading) caught most of the "cheats" because of how much they won, how greedy/sloppy they got and by memorizing the odds (watching some cheats win 2 or 3 out of 5 all day and knowing how impossible that was) combine that investigative technique with the old Watergate question "what did you know and when did you know it" and a lot of prosecutors have enough to start intimidating you and everyone you know to cough up admissions. The tactic starts with something along the lines: how could a pattern of stock trades always with x% gain or higher always on stocks your pal or you had insider knowledge of be explained any other way when the odds are a million to one against you? Since insider trading is always a team sport, you have a lot of what you would see on the movie Casino Jack where it is a race to be the singing canary once the Feds start the interrogations. Over half of police work is just making sure you listen to the confession, the vast majority of humans have an instinctual urge to just come clean and not live with secrets, the pressure cooker of US Assistant District Attorney staffs playing good cop bad cop with you as your life flashes by and the knawing thought that the others in the scheme are spilling beans and getting reduced sentences combined with that human urge to take credit for things--even crimes, is usually enough to crack those cases. People in finance and running companies and banks are very smart but usually have not one clue how to run and maintain a criminal conspiracy, I'm thinking the first 3 seasons of Breaking Bad where Walt despite his genius looked like a fool trying to keep up with hardened criminals. Marketdiamond (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Remember also (though many are confused by it) that Gordon Gekko was caught because of Insider Trading in the movie. The whole "Get me the information" thing. One might say it was just a movie but interesting tidbit, Oliver Stone's father worked on Wall Street his entire career and Oliver basically grew up going down to brokerage and banking houses (and the exchange) with his dad, for most in the industry Wall Street is a very strikingly realistic version of what actually happens day to day in Financial markets. Marketdiamond (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• The basic answer here is that it is impossible to prevent some level of insider trading, but it is essential to make a very serious effort to restrain it, because investors won't buy stock if they get too strong a feeling that the game is rigged against them. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to add...Some argue that insider trading should be made legal Insider trading#Arguments for legalizing insider trading. ny156uk (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

First time I have seen on the Ref Desk a first response of considerable length to a real-life situation but only sourced to the fiction of movies and T.V. Bielle (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If you are in possession of inside information on which it is illegal to trade, trading does not suddenly become legal simply by using the strategems you suggest. You are still placing trades on the basis of inside information. It would be different if you had a preexisting trading plan under Rule 10b5-1. Would you get away with it? It's hard to say. Although the SEC likes to catch all insider traders, even those who lose money, they do have to set priorities. The very oddness of your strategy might get you caught: Who uses a buy stop order without a corresponding short sale? The regulators have access to market data and can identify odd trading patterns with computerized analyses, so it doesn't pay to get too cute. But you might get through the net, because they aren't focused on strategies that are ineffectual. And your strategy would probably be ineffectual. When there is great good news, the stock doesn't just gradually rise; it jumps. So, by the time your order is filled, the trading price would already reflect the news, and you would get the same high price that everyone else got.

Tamfang: The law prohibits the purchase or sale of a security of any issuer, on the basis of material nonpublic information about that security or issuer, in breach of a duty of trust or confidence that is owed directly, indirectly, or derivatively, to the issuer of that security or the shareholders of that issuer, or to any other person who is the source of the material nonpublic information. There is a discussion at this blog post on when information is nonpublic. John M Baker (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• It would be particularly interesting to hear more about insider trading by espionage agencies or their fronts or personnel. I would think that they should have no need for public funding, though I suppose nobody turns down more money. Wnt (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Infant formula -> To Autism? Why no study?

How come there doesn't appear to be a study linking infant formula (or compounds thereof) to the forming of Autism? Wouldn't it be obvious that Autism rates are skyrocketing because something poisonous is being added to the babies' / toddlers' daily sustenance?

I swear, if a substance found in a set of children's products is ever positively linked to the epidemic, this finding could trigger the most epic class-action lawsuit of the century! --70.179.167.78 (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

How thoroughly have you searched for a study? I spent 15 seconds and found a whole bunch of potentially relevant studies here. Your excitement is understandable, but please try to moderate it in case you unnecessarily frighten any parents of newborns with words like "poisonous" and suggesting the link is "obvious". --Dweller (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In fact,such studies do exist (assuming you mean 'a study investigating the link between infant formula and autism'. I haven't seen a study that proves such a link.) Google Scholar is very useful for this - try searching 'infant formula autism' and you get a number of studies which investigate the link. The top result, interestingly, concludes that "children who were not breastfed or were fed infant formula without docosahexaenoic acid/arachidonic acid supplementation were significantly more likely to have autistic disorder" (emphasis mine) - that is, the study concluded that some infant formulas may provide important compounds (that seem to be present in breast milk) which play a role in reducing autism. You may find different conclusions from other papers whilst searching. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As Cucumber Mike notes, there are many theories, studies and conflicting conclusions about possible environmental causes of autism. On the one hand we have Could Infant Formula Cause Autism ?; on the other hand we have Autism Caused By Breast Milk ?. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(after ec) It would be obvious; but it is probably not true, so it isn't. Autism is known to have a significant genetic factor in its etiology. Moreover, there's been (proportionally) excessive emphasis recently on cases of regressive autism, where the child develops autistic traits in late infancy, leading to the loss of already acquired skills. The majority of autism cases do not follow this pattern. And it's important to note that there's been much controversy about the way that some autism causation studies have been conducted, and the lack of review they received before being taken up by the press.

It's not abundantly clear that there is an 'autism epidemic' at all - further research is needed, but with historical data lacking, it's always going to be hard to be sure. It's still possible that the perceived increase in autism is simply an increase in detection rates. There are many with a vested interest in claiming that such a thing exists. For example, the web site 'Age of Autism' is run by a communications manager from the Unification Church, or Moonies; hardly what I would call a neutral or reliable source.

The publication of DSM5 next year will probably lead to a reappraisal of some of these issues, as it looks set to amend the medical definition of autism. and that's not trivial; autism is not a transmissible condition which can be subjected to regular epidemiological analysis, but a neurological condition which may have one or several causes. It is not detected by checking the patient's blood for antibodies or bacteria, but by assessment by a trained professional according to the DSM criteria (or the equivalent and substantially derivative European standards). And those criteria are subject to change.

It's worth reading the UK National Autistic Society's pages on the causes of Autism: [25]

The NAS (unlike, for example, Autism Speaks) is well-supported and well-regarded by people who themselves have autism, and is not ideologically committed to demonstrating any foregone conclusions about the causes of the condition. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Seen not all agree, that lead to the conclusions that it is not obvious that autism rates are skyrocketing or that something is being added to baby formula or that the second is the cause of the first. Some people speculate that vaccines are the cause of many autism cases, many more consider it a genetic disorder. See MMR vaccine controversy and Causes of autism for the alternative view. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sexual attraction and ethnicity

Are people predisposed towards finding people of similar ethnicity more sexually attractive than others, or is the prevalence of such relationships merely the result of availability and cultural norms? Ankh.Morpork 12:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles Allophilia, Xenophily... AnonMoos (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah neither of those are about sexual attraction... --Viennese Waltz 13:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

They're about generalized attraction which can include sexual attraction in some cases. AnonMoos (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Physical attractiveness touches on race in a few places. Your question seems like a bit of a false dichotomy - sexual attraction is certainly affected by cultural norms. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I may have been unclear. I certainly understand that cultural norms will affect the nature of people's sexual proclivities and may even serve as the predominant factor. What I am curious about is whether in addition to this artificially induced behavior, there exists an underlying genetic impulse that affects our interracial sexual behavior. Ankh.Morpork 14:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There could possibly be 'an underlying genetic impulse', but if so it is an 'impulse' operating on a social construct - 'race'/ethnicity etc aren't biological facts in the first place, and whether someone is seen as 'of similar ethnicity' depends very much on the context. Even if this 'impulse' exists though, it appears not to be a particularly strong one - otherwise the 'cultural norms' (and the mechanisms to enforce them), them wouldn't be needed in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"'race'/ethnicity etc aren't biological facts in the first place" - While certain ethnic determinants such as a common history, language or culture are socially designed, there are genetic similarities that are very much biological. Ankh.Morpork 14:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

'Genetic similarities' between what and what? Please explain without resorting to social constructs... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The genetic relationship argument is largely bullshit. There are people from neighboring villages in Africa that each share more genetically with a person from France than either shares with each other. What counts for a "race" or an "ethnicity" in one culture is vastly different from what counts in another. The article Race and genetics is a decent read, and notes many of the problems with finding a genetic component to racial categories. The short story is that there isn't one, or where there is, it actually doesn't bear out in ways that justify the arbitrary racial characterizations we have (such as genetic malarial resistance among sub-Saharan Africans). --Jayron32 16:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The article that you refer to delineates the various positions on this issue and I am not convinced that your summation that "the short story is that there isn't one [a genetic component]" is accurate. Notably, Lewontin's Fallacy contested this line of thought, and was later endorsed by evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins. I will add that it is misleading to refer to our tiny genetic variations and adduce this as proof of genetic similarity. By the same token, we should not make a taxonomic distinction between humans and chimpanzees which share a 98% genetic make-up, and would you similarly contend that our sex is of no genetic significance since there are people from neighboring villages in Africa that each share more genetically with the opposite sex then than either shares with each other? Here, Dawkins addresses the significance of racial classification and adumbrates theories involving sexual selection in explanation of racial differences. Ankh.Morpork 17:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

However, it is known that people are attracted to people who look like themselves [26], and people who are genetically more similar to you are more likely to look like you. I think Jared Diamond had a chapter about this in The Third Chimpanzee. Buddy431 (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly valid to claim that there is a genetic component to attractiveness. But genetics is not ethnicity. --Jayron32 16:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that you can assert that "people are attracted to people who look like themselves" is 'known' based on a single questionable experiment - which said nothing about ethnicity. Not that ethnicity necessarily has much at all to do with how people look. How many of us could tell a Serb from a Croat by appearance? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's based on more than one experiment, that's just the one that I pulled off the internet first. Certain features among sexual partners, from the length of the earlobe to the distance between the eyes, show much higher correlation than they do among the general population [27]. Again, I'm not saying that it's all genetic or all cultural, and there are obviously confounding variables, but it's an interesting field. Buddy431 (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump cherry-picked two ethnicities that happened to be very similar. How many people can tell a Chinese from an Italian, or an Arab from a Jew? See also homophily, which has been confirmed by experiments in not just humans, but other animals. --140.180.247.208 (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"How many people can tell... an Arab from a Jew"? Or indeed "a Jew" from "a non-Jew". If you want to suggest that there is a correlation between appearance and ethnicity, I can't think of a less useful one than that. Whatever 'Jeweshness' is, it has very little to do with biologically-determined appearance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You guys can argue all you want about how ethnicity's "constructed" or false or whatever else, but for most of our history people have defined themselves in these terms so you can't just sweep away that they exist because they have an ugly history.

As to actually attempt to answer the OPs question instead of diving into a generic discussion about race/ethnicity/nature-vs-nurture, which these discussions are wont to do, here's a modest attempt at some references at this desk:

• Some OK Cupid internal studies. Perhaps not the same as being published in Science, but on the other hand they have a large dataset and it's people acting in real world conditions, not responding to what they think they should say. There are some very interesting findings in some of these posts: [28] [29].
• Here are some more scholarly ones (some behind paywalls): Homophily in online dating: when do you like someone like yourself? doi 10.1145/1056808.1056919
• Assessing attractiveness in online dating profiles doi 10.1145/1357054.1357181
• Racial preferences in dating, "Females exhibit stronger racial preferences than males....Older subjects and more physically attractive subjects exhibit weaker same-race preferences." 0034-6527/08/00060117
• Mate Preferences and Matching Outcomes in Online Dating

There's a lot of research on this subject. Just use some google scholar. Shadowjams (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

None of which has any relevance to the question asked by AnkhMorpork - which is whether there is any biological predisposition towards this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

rofl... "people predisposed towards finding people of similar ethnicity more sexually attractive than others, or is the prevalence of such relationships merely the result of availability and cultural norms?" If you bothered to look at some of those studies they speak directly to that question. For instance I believe the 4th one talks about how social friction may have a lot to do with those differences, as do changes throughout ages and other issues. But by all means, get back to the tangent discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

All the world's geniuses

i'd like to get a view of all the worlds geniuses. I have heard that before this generation there has been many geniuses.This leaves a question on my mind,who are they?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.51.2.168 (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You can start with me, although my reporting that will have to remain WP:OR. See Genius and Lewis Terman. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The Terman article refers to the stereotype of "conceited, freakish, socially eccentric, and [insane]". Just saying. Ankh.Morpork 22:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want a good scholarly work on human achievement, with plenty of lists, you should read the book Human Accomplishment by Charles Murray, here at Amazon. Unfortunately it lacks many of my favorite geniuses like J. R. R. Tolkien and Ayn Rand because their primary works were dated after 1950. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Twelve Tables

This article just simply says this law gave rights to the plebeians but it doesn't not specially say what rights do the plebeians got. So what specially the rights the plebeians got due to this Twelve Tables law? Can someone know the answer just add the info into the article? Or leave the answer here and I will add it to article. Info must include sources otherwise it would be consider as made up information.Pendragon5 (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The external links section of that article gives a link to their translation. See http://www.constitution.org/sps/sps01_1.htm μηδείς (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Who took this picture?