Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

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.

September 30

Soviet Census

How come it took the Soviet government 20 years to conduct a census after 1939, when it generally conducted censuses after a decade or so (1926, 1937/1939, 1959, 1970, 1979, 1989)? 1959 was the big exception, but I can't quite figure out why. WWII was over in 1945, but the USSR took 14 years after the end of WWII to conduct a new census. Futurist110 (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect political reasons. Two that come to mind is that they didn't want to admit how many people were killed in WW2 and/or how many people Stalin had killed. StuRat (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or practical reasons: they were killing lots of people until 59, and thought it didn't make sense to count them while they were killing. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these are terribly compelling "theories", as both misunderstand the mindset of the Soviet bureaucracy. The Soviets had no trouble making censuses in the 1920s or the 1930s, when they were purging left and right. I doubt this sort of thing had anything to do with it; faking data would have been easy enough, and World War II created enough Soviet casualties to massage any numbers if one wanted to. My suspicion is that there are probably far more banal reasons. But there doesn't seem to be anything written about this. It would be an interesting thing for someone to investigate, but it is a non-trivial thing to try and figure out over the Internet and in English alone. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Stalin was dissatisfied with the results of the 1937 Soviet census so he simply ordered a new one in 1939 and then rigged its results to show a larger population than it should have been. If the USSR would have wanted to manipulate some data it would have been very easy for them to do this. Also, even though the USSR was busy diverting resources to Communist takeovers and takeover attempts in Eastern Europe, China, and Korea, it would have probably still been able to have enough resources for a new census in the late 1940s/early 1950s if it desired to implement one. You're right that the reason for a lack of a Soviet census around 1950 might be something very basic, simple, and obvious. I wonder if Stalin planned to do a new census after he planned to deport the Soviet Jews to Siberia (if he had such plans in the first place). It would have been stupid for Stalin to do a new census in the late 1940s and early 1950s and then (assuming that he would have lived longer) to deport Soviet Jews to Siberia and then get blamed for a large further Jewish death toll. Of course, Stalin died before he could implement any such plans, if he had them, but had Stalin lived and done a new census after deporting the Soviet Jews to Siberia, then he could have used Hitler as a complete scapegoat for the decline in the Soviet Jewish population even if some of it would have been his fault. I speak Russian fluently, and I can read it fluently as well but very slowly. However, I speak "common" Russian, not "literary/academic" Russian, so even if I tried a search in Russian about this I won't know where to look or what search words/key words to use. Futurist110 (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The official website suggests they were busy counting other things like equipment, materials, cattle, and crops. Don't forget they had a terrible WW II, and were fully expecting to fight WW III. Zoonoses (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Soviet Union lost ~13.5% of its population. A large part of that from the military (i.e. from working-age people). They probably were quite busy just getting the country running again. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was my initial thought, but would they really have been in such dire straits that they couldn't do a census by 1949 or 1950? It's possible, it just doesn't seem like it's obvious enough to be definitive without some evidence of them saying, "we don't have time for this." They had enough resources in the 1945-1949 time period to build an atom bomb, you'd think they could fit in a census if they were really desiring of one. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Russian article suggests that the post-WWII famine caused the death of about a million people, and "[since] the data for that period could not be used for propaganda purposes, Stalin rejected statisticians' proposal for a new census in 1949". In any event, doing a census just may not have been viewed as a high enough priority for the country at the time. (Theoretically speaking, the USSR would not need to have decenial censuses at all, if other population counting mechanisms (birth and death registration, records of arrests and forced relocations, residential address registration) had been working 100% perfectly - although of course it was exactly the WWII period that had all these registration systems break down to various extent for several years.) -- Vmenkov (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

name for a research paradigm

I'm doing qualitative research, and to satisfy various people, it is highly desirable (perhaps not essential) that I classify it as something that sounds good. It's closest to in-depth interviews, but not quite as involved. Basically I'm just finding out whether some software I've done is any good for education, and so the basic question I want to ask participants is "does it work?" It's not rocket science to assume they have a reasonable idea of its benefits, if we are talking about education (it would be different if we were talking about the effect of a drug on blood clotting, for example, or a retrospective study on pain in babies, etc etc). So it makes sense to ask people what they think, and just let them tell me, but I want to know what's the closest thing to this among official "named" research methods. I've done some searching, and every named thing I can find is quite detailed, and usually borrowed from psychology (or some other more theoretical area) and requires a lot more than just asking people for their opinions. More rigorous research will follow; this is just for a pilot. IBE (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of the term "focus group", but that's used more in marketing, and involves group interviews, not one-on-one. How about just "Educational software user assessment analysis" ? StuRat (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That might in fact work, but it's safer to use an existing paradigm with a fancy sounding name and its own Wikipedia article. The corollary to whaaoe must be that if we don't, it doesn't exist. IBE (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on educational software, end-user, assessment, and analysis. Put them together and you have "Educational software end-user assessment analysis". StuRat (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try ;).... assessment is a disambiguation page, and in any case, I said "an" article. Four is a bit too many. Good trick though, didn't see it coming. IBE (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that an editor like StuRat was trying to "trick" you, and I'd recommend being more cautious of throwing around these terms on Wikipedia. --Activism1234 06:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an evaluation. Good evaluations use a mix of methods. In the pilot phase you used simply interviews, perhaps they were semi-structured interviews, but if you only asked one or two questions then that would be too much to claim. Now as you go into the main phase you need to choose your methods carefully, not just to sound good, but to give you valid results. The most important thing you need to think about is the independence of the research from you as the software developer. Ideally you would commission an entirely independent team to do the next phase. If you can't do that, can you involve some users in designing and carrying out the research? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I can go that far, but wouldn't it be nice .... sadly, that counts as work, and I have to do it (PhD, not major software company stuff). Thanks for the terminology: nice and simple. IBE (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then at least make the questions objective ones, like "How would you rate the ____ from 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest possible rating ?". This way, assuming you don't lie about what they said, it's not possible to "put your own spin" on the data. StuRat (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how general the research method is, I'd be surprised if there was a term more specific than "survey", "poll", or "market research". Note that if you plan on asking people "does this work?", those people had better be the children who will use your software, because why would a 50-year-old know what the best way to learn elementary algebra is for a 12 year old? --140.180.242.9 (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish independence

If Scotland becomes independent, would anyone from any part of the UK be allowed to move to Scotland and become a Scottish citizen, or would only people born in Scotland be allowed?

Will people from the rest of the UK wanting to jump ship and leave with Scotland be blocked from doing so?

Are there any historical precedents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.25.156.221 (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no concrete proposal, so you'd have to guess about what the post-independence arrangements would be. The arrangements for the referendum seem to be only people living in Scotland at the time could vote (so people born in Scotland but living in say England wouldn't be); whether that applied for citizenship, no-one knows, as no-one has decided. There isn't much law about how a divorce could be conducted (the Acts of Union don't cover this eventuality) - one might look to the Dissolution of Czechoslovakia as a guideline about how amicable divorces of unified countries could be conducted (or perhaps Dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden in 1905, although that article has less info about the internal and external legal outcomes). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems very unlikely that an independent Scotland would isolate itself from the rest of the world to the extent that British people couldn't move to Scotland. It would depend on the laws that a future independent Scotland enacts: all countries have rules regarding immigration, and there are rules about naturalisation of foreign citizens. Depending on what Scotland decided would be its relationship with the EU - whether it will be a full-blown member, or just a member of the European Economic Area - it might still have to let citizens of other European countries (including the UK) enter and work. If that's the case, then people from the UK wanting to live in an independent Scotland, that is a member of the EU, probably could move there. The only 'problem' (and I don't know if it really would be a problem for people moving to Scotland) would be whether they could find work there. Even if Scotland choses to be neither an EU member nor an EEA member, it could still choose to have lax immigration laws for UK citizens. (To me, that seems the most likely, at least in the short run.)

There are several examples of (current) states that have had referendums to break away from a larger state. One could include the East Timorese independence referendum, 1999 or the South Sudanese independence referendum, 2011, just last year. V85 (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Scottish National Party (which is the only plausible agent for Scottish independence at present) is very Euro-enthusiastic. Whether the European Union actually wants an independent Scotland as a member is not a foregone conclusion, as they've already been told that membership won't be granted automatically, they'll have to apply like everybody else. Alansplodge (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than Scotland being outside the EU and the (rest of the) UK inside, the reverse situation is a more likely scenario. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For another possible blueprint of scission and its aftermath, consider Ireland–United Kingdom relations#Co-operation. This covers citizenship, the Common Travel Area, and various kinds of cross border cooperation and institutions. One might analogise the issue of the Treaty Ports with that of HMNB Clyde. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good comparison. Irish Citizens who are resident and on the electoral register can vote in UK elections where other EU nationals cannot.[1] I believe this has been the case since the founding of the Irish Free State in 1922. Alansplodge (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider the Dissolution of the Soviet Union to be a relevant historical precedent, it seems most (perhaps all) post Soviet republics gave citizenship to USSR citizens resident in their territory at the moment of their independence. That's the primary factor of citizenship for at least Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, Estonia, and Russia. Some republics, like Lithuania and Latvia have a "law of return", and some have clauses where having grandparents from that republic is grounds for citizenship. Few allow dual citizenship (Russia does, a bit). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happened when the Republic of Ireland became independent? Did people have to decide that they wanted to stay UK subjects, or was everyone living in that part of Ireland automatically considered an Irish citizen? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irish nationality law#Historical provisions goes some way to answering this. It doesn't seem that people in the UK but not on the island of Ireland, who may have felt themselves to be "Irish", became or had rights to become Irish Republic nationals. It does seem that everyone involved did have the right to remain a UK national (which is quite unlike the USSR case, where people woke up one morning and found themselves solely the citizen of a country that hadn't existed the previous night, entirely without their having decided that). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising Model of Cable and Satellite TV

How exactly do Cable TV and Satellite TV companies make money off of the advertisements for the programing that goes on television? Do they sell or lease out their channels to media companies who provide the content who then sell ad-space? Or do they do it some other way? Bakmoon (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The various television networks make money off the television advertisement that appears during the shows that they run. Some periods of broadcasting time may be dedicated to "local affiliates" which can be the local carrier, so it's complicated. These networks have various licensing agreements with the cable and satellite distributors that carry them. Premium networks like HBO negotiate higher fees which are subscribed to by the customer individually through the carrier. Other channels become available to the customer as part of a much cheaper package. All of this is negotiated between the carriers and the networks, meaning occasional changes in what is available to the viewer. But commercial revenue largely goes to the network, not the carrier. μηδείς (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 1

Sir Anthony Knyvet

WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration

This question inspired an article to be created or enhanced:

Anthony Knyvett (1507-1554)

Please consider contributing

He was Governor of Portsmouth in 1544 and supervised the construction of Southsea Castle. Is this the same man that we have an stub article about: Anthony Knyvett (Black Rod)? Alansplodge (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to be two different gents both named Sir Anthony Knyvett.[2][3] Clarityfiend (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Many thanks - I was getting very confused. Alansplodge (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now created a stub article, Anthony Knyvett (1507-1554). Many thanks Clarityfiend. Alansplodge (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Alansplodge. And you too, Alansplodge. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Views on the afterlife

The ancient Greeks believed that death was horrible, eternal, and inevitable, which seems to be an odd combination shared by nobody else (not even atheists, who probably believe death is neutral rather than horrible). How did the Greeks not go insane with such a pessimistic view, since death was very common in the ancient world? Is there any other religion that views death in this way? --140.180.242.9 (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious. Where did you get the idea that "The ancient Greeks believed that death was horrible, eternal, and inevitable"? If you can tell us that it may give us a lead to their other thought processes (before they went insane). HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone had to go to Hades, some made it to the Elysian Fields. StuRat (talk) 05:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, where they invented baseball. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball was invented by dead Greeks? Who knew? --Trovatore (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Check it out for yourself: Elysian Fields ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the scene in the Odyssey where Odysseus calls up the ghost of Tiresias does present a pretty negative view of death. What I question is the belief that nobody else held similar views. The Navajo, as I understand it (mainly from reading Tony Hillerman books) traditionally hold a very negative view of the afterlife. Looie496 (talk) 05:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why we're talking as if death and the afterlife are synonymous terms. There's a lot more to a house than just the door, which is what death is in relation to the afterlife. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no house. Just the door. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The building inspectors will never approve. The makers of Blazing Saddles seem to have cottoned on to the general idea, though. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I was remembering Odysseus' conversation with Achilles in the Odyssey:

"In book 11 of Homer's Odyssey, Odysseus sails to the underworld and converses with the shades. One of these is Achilles, who when greeted as "blessed in life, blessed in death", responds that he would rather be a slave to the worst of masters than be king of all the dead. But Achilles then asks Odysseus of his son's exploits in the Trojan war, and when Odysseus tells of Neoptolemus' heroic actions, Achilles is filled with satisfaction."

Hades also seems to be a gloomy place in general. From our article: "In older Greek myths, the realm of Hades is the misty and gloomy[19] abode of the dead (also called Erebus), where all mortals go. Later Greek philosophy introduced the idea that all mortals are judged after death and are either rewarded or cursed." --140.180.242.9 (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The early Biblical notion of Sheol seems very similar to the Greek Hades. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the sense that it was seen as an underworld of gloom and semi-oblivion, that made no distinction between the good and the evil, and that people like Samuel could be called up from. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible indicates that Sheol describes the grave, which is to say that both the good and the evil is called to the grave. Sheol, as used in the Bible does not refer to a place, but to the actual state of death. "Samuel" was not called up, but a deceiving spirit in disguise instead, the Bible is quite clear on the state of the dead. Only God can restore life to the dead. The Bible does not support the idea of the afterlife in any case, there is only life and death. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is becoming a tangent to the OP's question, but Plasmic, it's not clear to me that the Samuel conjured up by the witch of Endor in 1 Samuel 28 is not in fact Samuel. The verses make it fairly plain that Saul, who knew Samuel in life, recognized him, and there is absolutely no suggestion in the passage, by Saul or anyone else, that Samuel did not in fact appear: http://www.esvbible.org/1+Samuel+28/ I'll admit that a large number of theologians have interpreted the passage as you do--that is, that it was a "deceiving spirit"--but that interpretation is not demanded by the text itself. I think it's fair to say that this passage, at the very least, suggests that Jewish ideas about death, the spirit realm, and the afterlife may have been more complicated in the era during which the books of Samuel were composed than they later have been understood through the lens of Christian exegesis (and I'm saying this as someone who identifies as Christian and takes a serious layman's interest in exegesis). Jwrosenzweig (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that the Books of the Bible can be cross-referenced, then it becomes impossible for that subect to be Samuel. This depends entirely on whether or not you acknowledge that the Books are interconsistent. If you don't acknowledge this then my arguement is pointless. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge your false dichotomy. I cannot see any reason to believe that the author of 1 Samuel did not think that the Witch of Endor successfully called on Samuel's spirit. And the spirit appears to give Saul accurate information, so there is no reason within the text to regard the spirit as 'deceiving'. Your assertion of 'interconsistency' is a very tall order, and an obviously unproven claim. Which other texts do you think give us reason to think otherwise?

It's not apparent that the author of 1 Samuel regards calling up a spirit as the same as 'restoring life to the dead'. There's a clear contrast with the most relevant story from Hebrew scripture, which is Elisha raising the Shunamite's son in 2 Kings 4. I also think that no credible scholar would ever claim, as you do, that 'the Bible does not support the idea of the afterlife'. New Testament examples are plentiful: I particularly direct your attention to Jesus' words to the dying thief, "I tell you truly, you will be with me in Paradise today", but also to Jesus' use of 'Abraham's Bosom' and related concepts in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. And in the Hebrew scriptures, there's 2 Samuel 22:6 and Psalm 18:5 (which certainly do seem related and interconsistent), where David specifically refers to Sheol by name, and Psalm 16:10 - "You will not leave my soul in Sheol", which makes it clear that the soul is conceived of as having an existence beyond the outward life of the body, and that Sheol is a potential trap or prison for it.

It looks like you want us not just to accept that the books of the Bible can be cross-referenced, but that doing so delivers an interpretation which suits the teaching you have accepted. I submit that (a) except where the explicitly call on the reader to recall another scripture, the books of the Bible can be read in isolation, and that (b) reading them in both their scriptural and historical contexts may lead to interesting and productive insights - about Judaism, Christianity, and the ancient Near East - but that it does not lead ineluctably to the conclusions you are attempting to press on us.

For my part, I regard the Bible's teaching on the afterlife to be partial and inconclusive, but most definitely not non-existent. And I think it's fair to say that the early image of Sheol, especially as illustrated by the books of Samuel and Psalms, does have some correspondence with beliefs about the afterlife found in Mesopotamian and Greek sources from both before and after the time those stories are set, and when they were likely to have been set down in something approaching their present form. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in discussing this with you if you don't fully understand your own premises. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you suppose my premises are, and in what way do you think I don't understand them? Because I have a degree in this stuff, and I like to think I have a reasonable clue what I'm talking about. Alternatively, you could actually address the points I've raised, rather than attacking my intelligence or integrity. I'm concerned because the OP asked a reasonable question, and your responses so far represent fairly obvious misinformation on the topic at hand. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that is the only thing that we have in common, we've both concluded that the other is misinformng. I didn't address the points you raised, because to make a succesful argument, it is necessary for both parties to first be in agreement over the premises used in making said argument. Since we don't agree over your asserted premises, my rebutal would be as useless as lever without a fulcrum. I did not attack your intelligence or integrity, I merely made an observation. I didn't address your premises either, as I can see from your personallity that it would be a futile task. In this context, I don't see meaning in degrees or personal achievement, understanding comes by the Spirit. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They do seem strikingly similar. I wonder if the Greeks could have influenced the Hebrews or vice versa in their views of the afterlife. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They very well might have. The Jewish people were living in the middle of the Hellenistic world for quite a while. While the Biblical period predates much of that period, for centuries many Jewish people lived in "Hellenistic Jewish communities, and it is quite likely there was significant cross-pollenization. See also Septuagint, a major and widely used Greek version of the Hebrew Bible. Again, while Hellenism occurred too late to be considered during the times the Hebrew Bible describes, later Jewish traditions would certainly have not been immune to such ideas, being in such close contact with the Greek world. --Jayron32 06:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were some Greek influences, but they should not be over-exaggerated. Before Alexander's conquests, Judea was a kind of minor inland province, somewhat insulated from sea-trading, and not quick to embrace foreign theological concepts. The scribes and priests of the Jerusalem temple, or the Babylonian exile, would have had zero knowledge of or interest in Greek literature. Even for a few books of the Hebrew Bible where it's widely considered possible that they were written after Alexander, and that there may be significant general overall Greek influences -- such as "Ecclesiastes" -- it's still extremely difficult to point to any particular passage as being specifically influenced by a passage in any Greek work, and there's a distinct paucity of Greek loanwords... AnonMoos (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I stated exactly what you stated. When I said "Again, while Hellenism occurred too late to be considered during the times the Hebrew Bible describes..." what I meant by that was "Hellenism occurred too late to be considered during the times the Hebrew Bible describes" I'm sorry if that was unclear. --Jayron32 14:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the classical concept of "Sheol" is contained in the parts of the Bible which date from too early for meaningful Greek influence, while during the Hellenistic period many (not all) Jews moved towards an apocalyptic resurrection and heaven-vs.-hell view of the afterlife (which is generally ascribed mainly to Persian influence, if any outside influences were involved), so I'm not sure when significant Greek influence on Jewish views of the afterlife could have occurred... AnonMoos (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not to say that the Persian and Greek and later Hebrew concepts didn't come up in the same cultural millieu. These cultures had constant continuous contact over many centuries, and it would be surprising if they all didn't have profound impact all on each other. The Achaemenid Empire dates from the founding of Zoroastrianism, which happened at the same time as the Babylonian captivity period when much of the Hebrew Bible was penned (though it describes earlier periods, it was written down at this time) and this is also the time Classical Greece reached its Zenith and when much of Greek Mythology was committed to its classic form. So, you have a case where three major religious traditions are being composed during the same (roughly) overlapping 200 year period, among cultures which are in constant contact and yet it is supposed to be surprising that there are parallels between Greek Hades and some concepts of Sheol, as well as the "Heaven-and-Hell" aspects of Zoroastrianism? I'd say I would be shocked if such connections weren't made, given the historical realities. --Jayron32 17:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were many possible paths of cultural influence; however, it's hard to get around the facts that before 332 BC there was no meaningful direct influence of Greek mythology or literature on Biblical Judaism, while after 332 BC, Jewish views of the afterlife tended to move away from a Hades-like conception... During the era when Greek influence became more historically plausible, Jewish conceptions of the afterlife actually became less Greek-like. AnonMoos (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's quite widely accepted that early Greek religion and mythology were influenced by the Phoenicians, aka Canaanites, who also influenced the early Israelites. They're all nations on or not far from the coast of the eastern Mediterranean, so some degree of cross-pollinisation would be unsurprising. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never give a sword to a man who cannot dance

One of my friends told me that this was a quote by Confucius, as a number of quote sites online mention. I feel that this is spurious however, and I couldn't find anything in the Analects that says anything to this regard. What's the origin of this quote, or is this just the work of some fortune cookie hack? bibliomaniac 1 5 07:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never take a quote from a man who cannot provide the source. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked two different translations of the Analects[4][5] and the words "sword" and "dance" do not appear in both of them. For what it's worth this Chinese guy[6] made the exact same observation as you. A8875 (talk) 07:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The digging I did on the interwebs suggests this quote is from a work of James Macpherson, although the sites I found this claim on were too unreliable to the point of even being worth mentioning. Specifically this quote was supposed to originate with Fionn mac Cumhaill as written by Oisín and translated by Macpherson, although it's worth noting that Macpherson made up pretty much everything he "translated". Someguy1221 (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if you can find it recorded much earlier than modern mythologizer Robert Bly's Iron John (book) who says "Michael Meade reminds us of the old Celtic motto: "Never give a sword to a man who can't dance."" meltBanana 13:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw this topic in the TOC I immediately thought of Scottish sword dances before I even scrolled down to read this. Roger (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From memory, there's some sort of famous "sword dance" written by Scriabin or Rimsky-Korsakov or Kabalevsky or someone like that.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cancel that. Was thinking of the "Sabre Dance" from Khachaturian's Gayane.--Shirt58 (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of sword dancing too, but I think the point is, that if you're not coordinated enough to be able to dance properly, then you're likely to be a worse-than-useless with a sword. I'm probably stating the obvious though. Alansplodge (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philosopher Wilson called it an ancient Celtic saying that goes, "never give a sword to a man who can't dance." Rich Goodhart has a CD, "Never Give A Sword To A Man Who Can't Dance." Choreographer Joe Chvala mentions a Celtic motto, "Never give a sword to a man who can't dance," to emphasize the mythically destructive and creative duality of aggression. Similarly, he explains how the berserks worshipped Odin, the Norse god of war and poetic inspiration, "which are two things people don't generally put together, but the dance does." Another reference mentions, old Celtic saying: "Never give a warrior a sword before he learns to dance". Another reference mentions, "There is an old Celtic proverb that says, "Never give a sword to a man who can t dance." In other words, don t entrust weapons to a man who is not also capable of experiencing joy and passion." Another reference, "There is an ancient eastern saying, "Never give a sword to a man who can't dance, or the Celtic saying, You cannot pick up the sword until you have picked up the drum."[7]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both 'Celtic' and 'Eastern' are extremely general terms. Can you be more specific, and do you have sources? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we ready to call bullshit on this? If anyone can find a pre-internet reference, I'll eat my lunch. Zoonoses (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't want you to go hungry, Zoonoses. Please start, otherwise it will go cold. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well - two months later I stumbled across a possible reference in the Essays of Elia (Mrs. Battle's Opinions on Whist): She held not her good sword (her cards) "like a dancer." (The quotes are Lamb's.) This was first published in the early 1820's. Lamb didn't footnote this quotation, but it is almost certainly from Antony and Cleopatra Act 3 Scene 11:

 Antony: Yes, my lord, yes: he at Phillipi kept
 His sword e'en like a dancer while I struck
 The lean and wrinkled Cassius, and 'twas I
 That the mad Brutus ended: he alone
 Dealt on lieutenantry, and no practice had
 In the brave squares of war: yet now, no matter.

My excellent Royal Shakespeare Company copy of the play glosses the relevant line: sword...dancer in its scabbard, like a dancer's sword worn for ornament. Maybe, maybe.... Zoonoses (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

anti-zionism

If people in Israel are anti-zionist, why don't they leave Israel instead of staying there? as a matter of fact why doesn't Israel kick out the anti-zionists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.44 (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea what the words you're using mean? -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that last word in their post was meant to repeat "anti-Zionist". StuRat (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence in its original form as of 14:56, 1 October 2012 is incoherent semi-gibberish... AnonMoos (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they since corrected the last word from "zionist" to "anti-zionist". StuRat (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, 'Zionism' means a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. The opposite (anti-zionism) would be to oppose the existence of a Jewish nation, which is in essence what Hamas strives for (the annihilation of Israel). It makes sense to me that Israel would not consider that ideology particularly constructive. - Lindert (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what argument the OP is trying to make. Roughly, and very much generalizing, you could divide anti-Zionists in Israel in three categories: 1) Palestinians who hold Israeli citizenship, who have roots in the land and who have no intention of leaving. Many of them would prefer a secular state, a state with equality for all citizens. They were there before the State of Israel was conceived, and any expulsion would be fiercely resisted 2) A minority within the Jewish left, who likewise would prefer a secular state. Most of them would be children or grandchildren of migrants to Palestine/Israel. They generally thread a fine line balancing themselves between anti-Zionist and the fact that their own families are residents of Israel through Aliyah (a pillar of Zionist doctrine). 3) some ultra-orthodox Jews (like Neturei Karta), who don't support the notion of a Jewish state. The latter two categories are very small. Any draconian expulsion (as the OP seems to want to imply) would have no benefits and create many, many problems for Israeli policy-makers.

And @Lindert, no anti-Zionism is not about 'annihiliation', it is a critique of a chauvinist doctrine. --Soman (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what 'chauvinist doctrine' may that be? If someone can support 'the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel' (zionism) and at the same time oppose some 'chauvinist doctrine' (supposedly anti-zionism), does that mean that one can be a zionist and an anti-zionist at the same time? - Lindert (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soman is saying that Zionism is the chauvinist (bellicose patriotism) doctrine. I don't see any way you can be both Zionist and anti-Zionist at the same time. You're either for an officially Jewish state or you aren't. Opposing some parts of it, but still wanting an officially Jewish state, is just another form of Zionism. It isn't anti-Zionism. Soman is correct in pointing out that there are plenty of anti-Zionist critiques which aren't based on "annihilation of Israel".--Mr.98 (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The annihilation of a Jewish nation could simply mean the annihilation of the state's discrimination against non-Jews. I oppose "the development and protection of a Christian nation in what is now America", but only because I think American policies (including immigration policies) should not discriminate against any religion, not because I want New York to go up in flames. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term "annihilation" is obviously one loaded with violent connotations — it means "complete destruction." There are no doubt some groups out there who want Israel and the Jewish people annihilated, but they should be considered the exclusive definition of what anti-Zionism means. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing a negation in the last clause. --Trovatore (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find elements of the above discussion problematic in their use of the key terms - including the OED definition. Kindly consider:

The Jewish "people" - a better term than "nation" as the latter is usually associated with geopolitical locales - can be seen as including (a) adherents of the Jewish religion (b) individuals who descend from Jewish forebears and who either (b1) do or (b2) don't identify with this ethnicity apart from religious belief/practice as in (a). Almost all (a) are also (b), whereas many (b1) and even more (b2) are not (a).
The state of Israel was established to be a homeland for the Jewish people (not "a" Jewish "nation"), and those who qualify per the Israeli Interior Ministry are granted residence and citizenship. This preferential treatment is considered by Zionists a goal worthy of continued support due to antisemitism in other sovereign nation-states. Not incidentally, Israel is the world's only country (and this only since 1948) to institute what I'll call Jewish culture: the Hebrew language, the Jewish calendar of holidays, etc.
The state of Israel doesn't operate entirely on Jewish religious law, though this is enforced in many areas of life in the domain of the abovementioned Ministry of the Interior.

"Orthodox" and "ultra-Orthodox" Jews are numerically a minority, though their political parties receive disproportionately high support due to the clout they wield in coalition system of government.
Minorities do have government-funded support, notably a separate education system for the Arab population (language of instruction: Arabic).

For the purposes of this query, looking only at "anti-Zionists living in Israel": they oppose the privileges granted to Jews and would prefer a "nation[-state] of all its inhabitants/citizens." (A separate case from some believing Jews who maintain that only the Messiah can bring about a Jewish sovereign state on Earth.) Perhaps the manifesto of some anti-Zionist party or similar organization would specify whether Judaic religious practices would be included along with others, i.e. Muslim, Christian, or secular (similar to the U.S.A.'s "separation of Church and State"), or be relegated to minority status (and possibly delegitimized) were the Jewish/Zionist hegemony replaced by either a secular, egalitarian multi-stream, or non-democratic form of government. I can also state that it's possible to support the Zionist call for Israel as a homeland for the world's Jews while demanding - as written in the Basic Law amendments (notably that of Human Dignity and Liberty) to Israel's Declaration of Independence - equal treatment/opportunities/rights/responsibilities for all its inhabitants, perhaps on the model of other multilingual, multiethnic democracies. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing how the Arabic word for "Arab nationalism" (قومية) literally means "tribalism" (as expressed and exemplified in such literary masterworks as Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies), while the country of Malaysia has an overtly and explicitly racist governing philosophy backed up by an overtly and explicitly racist constitution, yet for some reason Soman never seems to criticize those nationalisms... AnonMoos (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is some kind of personal quarrel you have with Soman, I don't want to get involved. But this discussion is about Jews and Zionism, not Arabs, Malays, or their constitution. Soman also didn't denounce Stalin in this thread, but that doesn't imply anything about his beliefs about Stalin. --140.180.242.9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal quarrel as such, just that I'm a little tired of the trotting out of pseudo-leftist jargon buzzwords (such as "chauvinist" here) as some kind of apparent substitute for reasoned critical thought when it comes to certain topics (as for Stalin, see the use of buzzword "progressive" at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 November 5#Israel & American policy...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall having ever spoken in favour the bumiputra doctrine, neither on WP:RDH nor anywhere else. AnonMoos tried the same argument ploy back in 2009, and I responded there Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2009_August_10#Racism_Israel. --Soman (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2

What makes a country "independent"? (e.g. Curacao)

This Associated Press article about the Caribbean island of Curacao says near the bottom Curacao is an independent country [emphasis mine] within the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the governor is the representative of the Dutch monarch. That sounds to me pretty close to saying that, say, Australia is an independent country that is a Commonwealth realm within the Commonwealth of Nations, with a shared queen. But I looked up Curacao in Wikipedia, and it seems to be more complicated than that. It says in the Politics section The Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles came into effect on 10 October 2010.[32] Curaçao became a country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, with the Kingdom retaining responsibility for defence and foreign policy. The Kingdom was also to oversee the island's finances under a debt-relief arrangement agreed between the two. The article Politics of Curacao says Curaçao has full autonomy on most matters, with the exceptions summed up in the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands under the title "Kingdom affairs". Here and elsewhere Wikipedia conspicuously avoids calling it an "independent country". And Curacao does not appear in Member states of the United Nations, which says "In principle, only sovereign states can become UN members".

So how does one decide whether to refer to a country like Curacao as "independent" (or for that matter "sovereign"--"sovereign" is especially vague since it is used in referring to American Indian tribes and American states--there are degrees of sovereignty.) The statement with the Kingdom retaining responsibility for defence and foreign policy [of Curacao] sounds to me just like this statement from our article associated state in the table with reference to Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, and Marshall Islands, all of which are in the UN: United States provides defense, funding grants and access to U.S. social services for citizens of these areas under the Compact of Free Association.

So given that there presumably is no official definition of "independent country", where does one draw the line between "independent" and "autonomous", or "independent" and "not independent"? And where does the UN draw the line between sovereign enough to be a member and not sovereign enough? Duoduoduo (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A starting point when it comes to defining an 'independent state' is the Montevideo Convention which states that a country must have a 1) population, 2) territory, 3) government, and 4) ability to enter into diplomatic relations with others. From my own studies, my teacher emphasised that the country would have to have control of its territory, so an occupied country won't be seen as independent. When it comes to the UN, the other countries have to vote on them becoming members. This is why Taiwan is unlikely to become a UN member, as the PRC will block it (and when Taiwan held China's UNSC seat, it blocked Mongolia's membership, as it considered Mongolia to be part of its traditional territory). Similarly, the problem for Palestine is that the US will block its independence from Israel (so long as Israel doesn't give the go ahead). Although the list of members of the UN is usually seen as the list of sovereign states, there is no legal requirement for states to be members of the UN. The famous example is Switzerland that for a long period chose not to be a UN member, although no one would contest the fact that it's an independent state.

I think that when it comes to actually assessing whether a state is independent or semi-independent, one has to look at the facts on the ground: Is it self-governing and in charge of its own territory, even if that territory is claimed by someone else? In a case such as Curacao, I guess that we just accept the treaty between the Netherlands and Curacao, i.e. so long as they consider themselves to be independent, but with the same King, we accept that as being their relationship. V85 (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another factor, not unrelated to UN membership but still separate from it, is recognition by other countries. That is, recognition of the "Government of Curaçao", whatever that means, as legitimate and separate and autonomous and different from the Government of the Netherlands. Does Curacao claim this status, and does any other country recognise it? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Britain has a consulate there, rather than an embassy, which I think means it doesn't recognise it as an independent sovereign entity. Our article says: "Curaçao became a country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, with the Kingdom retaining responsibility for defence and foreign policy." so that isn't surprising. --Tango (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Britain has multiple embassies and consulates in Japan, so I doubt that actually has anything to do with it. The British Gov also has a High Commission, a Deputy High Commission, two High Commission Liaison Offices, and another Liaison Office in Nigeria, and no Embassy. Having an embassy in a country does not mean that they recognize the country as a sovereign entity, because I am pretty sure the UK recognizes Nigeria as an independent sovereign state. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the deciding factor, when a country's defense is in someone else's hands, is whether the country can unilaterally cancel that defense agreement (as say Palau could) or whether it cannot do that unilaterally (as perhaps is the case with Curacao?). Duoduoduo (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, Monaco's defense is managed by France but I would call it independant. It's foreign policy is independent though, which allowed it to become a UN member. --85.119.27.27 (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, foreign policy is far more important than defense when it comes to independance. Plenty of small countries have agreements where a larger country provides their defense since it wouldn't be practical or efficient for them to maintain their own standing army. That doesn't stop them being independant. --Tango (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, as I said countries like Palau are independent while revocably handing over their defense to a larger country. I assume Monaco is in that category--it could decide that henceforth France no longer is responsible for its defense (or is that not right?). But my suggestion was that a country that by law cannot revoke its defense agreement is therefore not independent. Comments? Duoduoduo (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Dependent territory is probably also relevant here, with many examples showing different degrees of "dependency". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

creative common licensing for the work already in public domain

Is it possible to license my art work, which is currently in public domain, under creative commons? Will it prevent others from for-profit implementations? Should I prove as it is my work? --V4vijayakumar (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, wrong noticeboard. Take this exact same question, and ask it again at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --Jayron32 04:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About Indian independence fighter in INA malaysia

Could I please get the currnet deatils about Mrs.Janaky Athi Nahappan, Malaysia? Who fought for Indian independence through Indian National Army of Subash Chandra Bose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.98.241 (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article about Janaky Athi Nahappan. Looie496 (talk) 06:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did communist forces use civilians as cannon fodder in Menglianggu Campaign?

Just mentioned an excerpt form Xin Haonian in zh:人海战术 says "during the Menglianggu Campaign, in order to eliminate the 74th Reorganized Division led by Zhang Lingfu, the communists forced landowners, rich farmers, their children and nakesd women to be their cover."（在孟良崮戰役中，為了消滅抗日名將張靈甫的整編第74師，中共竟逼迫地主、富農及其孩子和裸體婦女在前面做衝鋒掩護。） but I cannot find such saying anywhere else in the Chinese and English article of Menglianggu Campaign. Can that claim ever be true?--Inspector (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"nakesd " ? StuRat (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The role sounds like what would be called "human shields", not "cannon fodder"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article; Human shield. Alansplodge (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is right. But the Human shield article says nothing about even the Chinese Civil War.--Inspector (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True; but I thought it might be useful if the article is updated. A quick look at Google didn't give any useful information in English unfortunately. Alansplodge (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if it will be better to ask among those who studied this area. But I would like to know what is the westarn view about the tactics employed during the battles in Chinese Civil War?--Inspector (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I studied a lot of mid-century Chinese politics, war and military affairs, and this incident is not one I’ve come across. Still, it may have simply been under-reported in scholarly works. More to the point, my first thought is “who is the source?” That will often tell you all you need to know about the likely accuracy of a one-off report. ADD: The source is a pro-Nationalist (KMT) newspaper in Shanghai, in 1946. That puts it in the grey area between heavily censored news and deliberate propaganda. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any links to this source?ADD: wait a minute, the Menglianggu Campaign took place in May 1947, and "The source is a pro-Nationalist (KMT) newspaper in Shanghai, in 1946." You mean by 1946 the date when the newspaper started? --Inspector (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As always, with material like this, there is a difference between reporting something as fact, and reporting that a source claimed it as fact - and if the source is a pro-KMT newspaper, you'd need very strong grounds not to going with the latter option. Even better, find a less partial source, and use that instead. If you can't find one, then ask yourself whether the claim actually merits inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karaite Judaism vs. Fundamental Christianity

What's the difference between the two? What are the similarities? As far as I can tell, they both seem to worship the Bible - the former the Hebrew Bible, the latter the Christian Protestant Bible. 140.254.227.46 (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the obvious differences between Christians and Jews, I think that if you honestly believe any group committed to the literal truth of the Ten Commandments can really be said to worship a book, you have not understood these religions. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article to read is Fundamentalism which explains fundamentalist strains of all religions in broad terms, and will help the OP to fix the misconceptions they appear to be working from (if indeed, they are interested in fixing their own misconceptions). --Jayron32 14:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given some of the OP's other edits, they may well not be. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'm using a public computer. 140.254.227.46 (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether Karaites are very meaningfully "fundamentalist" but they're strictly scripturally literalist -- applying the sola scriptura principle in a more thoroughgoing way than Protestants have traditionally done, to the degree that they've sometimes been considered effectively a different religion than Rabbinic or "Rabbanite" Judaism... AnonMoos (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the difference between Jews and Christians is pretty obvious (happy to elaborate if necessary...), I think a more interesting question would be the difference between Karaites and Sadducees... I don't know that myself. --Jethro B 00:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think there's any real historical continuity between the two, but both vehemently rejected the "Torah she-be-`al peh"... AnonMoos (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Violence

So I've read information in the past that addressed that we live in the most peaceful time in history. I couldn't find a solid article here that addressed violence today in comparison to violence in recent or even ancient history. Does that exist, or where would I find more good sources comprehensively looking into violence rates in the past. Thanks Chris M. (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not fully comprehensive (since comprehensive historical information often just isn't available), but see The Better Angels of Our Nature for a prominent recent book... AnonMoos (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflict) A quick Google under "Do we live in more violent times?" has New Scientist - Steven Pinker: Humans are less violent than ever as the first result. Alansplodge (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted, I suppose, that Pinker's conclusions are considered fairly controversial. He more or less ignores the World Wars, for example, as anomalies to the general trend. More than a few people have taken issue with that sort of thing. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose once you dismiss a few tens of millions of deaths as anomalies, you can come to any conclusion you want.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you count them, they aren't as significant, relative to a global population of billions, as you might think. StuRat (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends on what you call 'now'. Now in the XXI century we enjoy one of the most peaceful times of humankind, but in the last 100 years not so. The compelling reason to define 'now' in a more limited way is certainly that that is what matters to us. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars by death toll could give one a start. Collect data by years, compare to world-wide population during those times, and see when the greatest proportion of the world population died in wars. An idea on methodology. The incompleteness of the Wikipedia article is probably a hindrance, but if one could get the data from better sources, I'd think that's how one would do it. --Jayron32 19:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that focussing on big wars may be missing the point slightly. With or without war, many premodern societies generally had higher levels of violence in day to day life, whether as a function of disputes or feuds or punishments... bobrayner (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Winged Horse

My understanding is that Pegasus is the name of the winged horse ridden by Bellerephon, child of Medusa 'n' all that. My question is did the Greeks have a word for a generic winged horse? People nowadays just call any horse with wings, 'a pegasus' but I'm curious if there exists a word that the Greeks may have used.24.218.57.201 (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably they just called Pegasus the ancient Greek equivalent of a "winged horse". If there were more than one, they might have had a name for them collectively, like Gorgons for Medusa and pals. StuRat (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus is the name of a mythological winged-horse character. A theoretical word formed from ancient Greek roots meaning "winged horse" would be something like Pterippos πτεριππος... AnonMoos (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not one word, but Apollodorus calls him "hippos ptenos". Adam Bishop (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"hippos pteros", I should think, as with the Pterosaurs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Πτερος is the noun meaning "feather" or "wing" suitable for forming compound words, but Πτηνος is the adjective meaning "feathered" or "winged" suitable for use in multi-word phrases... AnonMoos (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was there more than winged horse in Greek mythology? Alansplodge (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're trying to ask if there was more than one winged horse. There were two, Pegasus and his twin brother Chrysaor. I don't know of any others in the standard canon. --Jayron32 12:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry the "one" was missed out somehow. However, our article on Chrysaor says "often depicted as a young man". The carving of him at the Temple of Artemis (Corfu) also doesn't show any equine attributes, although admittedly you can't see anything below his hips. This site says: "KHRYSAOR (or Chrysaor) was a son of the Gorgon Medousa. He was usually represented as giant, but may also have been conceived of as a winged boar, just as his twin brother Pegasos was a winged horse." Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal law in a US private bill

Private Law 95-10, signed by US President Carter in late 1977, directed the Postal Service to forgive some debts and the Treasury Department to repay money that had already been paid on the debt. It contained a provision stipulating that no more than a certain percentage of the amount repaid could be devoted to attorneys' fees, and the subsection concluded with "Any person violating the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not exceeding $1,000." Imagine that someone had violated these provisions: what would the charge have been? Is there some part of the US Code that gives a default name to crimes that aren't named by the statutes that create them? I don't remember seeing any kind of criminal law in a private bill before. 2001:18E8:2:1020:81A9:10F5:10B3:3C4A (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Contempt of Congress. Certainly it would only have bound the parties affected, who would be on notice of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with that. Shadowjams (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They can just say "You are charged with violating statute X, subsection Y, of ...". Even when crimes have names, they often include a variety of offenses, so it's important to specify the exact sections under which they are charged.StuRat (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who are these "they" that can charge you with things? I seem to remember Al Gore saying his crimes were unpunishable because there existed "no controlling legal authority" to prosecute them. μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? Shadowjams (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you're still confused. μηδείς (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "they" would be the executive branch, and everyone else down the line. Shadowjams (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that Gore reference is so far afield of the original question I don't see how it even came to mind as relevant.Controlling legal authority in that instance was a reference to an indication it was illegal, not that they couldn't find a prosecutor. There is an issue of who prosecutes the executive itself. For that there's the Saturday Night Massacre, and the independent prosecutor, but again, none of that has any reference to this question at all. The central confusion in the OP's question is either an assumption that private laws cannot carry criminal penalties (they may), or that the lack of codification means a penalty cannot exist (it does not). Shadowjams (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the law (or another law) specifies that a certain prosecutor can bring a certain charge, it is pretty much a joke, which was Gore's point. They had declared certain campaign acts illegal, but no one was empowered by law to prosecute them. StuRat's "solution' immediately below is entirely novel--we'd need a ref to a law which allows such prosecutions by the legislative branch. Bills of attainder are expressly forbidden, so I don't expect he's looking to the Constitution. μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever the specifics of the Gore case, your point is exactly why there's a constitutional debate over the legality of an independent prosecutor. Even bills of attainder would be enforced by the executive. And yes, unless Congress is given some power expressly or implicitly (e.g., contempt) they don't have enforcement power. And there's no way, absent that constitutional power, Congress could write itself in as the enforcer of a particular law (the special prosecutor statute some might argue does this, but that argument's for another day). Shadowjams (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While contempt of Congress has recently been interpreted to mean refusing to testify before Congress, provide requested documents, or lying to it, and historically included bribing Congressmen, is there any reason they couldn't interpret it more broadly, as violating any law which they pass and choose to enforce directly ? StuRat (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. That's a basic separation of powers issue. It's so basic I can't even offhandedly think of a case that would demonstrate it, but I suppose I can pull out an old hornbook if you really think it could be. Shadowjams (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the special prosecutor who can go after anyone for any reason seems to be such a violation, but that was allowed. Then we had the House Un-American Activities Committee, which, while not officially a court, certainly acted like one. What exactly would be the procedure to bring such a thing up before the US Supreme Court, since it doesn't start out in the lower courts ? StuRat (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The special prosecutor statute is fraught with constitutional issues. It's perhaps one of the largest constitutional debates about separation of powers still going today. That statute, incidentally, still appoints an executive official (see Saturday Night Massacre). The tricky part is whether or not the President can fire that official. As for Congressional hearings, which McCarthy's committee was one, those are the things that are within Congress' power. Namely, Congress has the constitutional ability to hold hearings, and do other things to make legislation. And in exercising that basic fact they can call witnesses, subpoena people, etc. But that doesn't give them general executive authority, and no matter how bad congressional committees can get, it's nothing like making and then enforcing your own rules. Shadowjams (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we talking about judicial authority, versus executive authority, if they are to try people directly for violating their laws ? (The issue of arresting people is more of an executive function, but they could either arrest them with the 1700 member United States Capitol Police force, or try them in abstentia.) StuRat (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When cardiac surgeons work on a patient who's mysteriously not there, they're operating in abstentia. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would those be ab(dominal) stents ? StuRat (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Well, if Congress passes a law and doesn't pass the responsibility for trials onto anyone else, then it would be up to them to press charges. It's not very practical, but is possible. They generally only preside over impeachment trials. StuRat (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at most indictments they list the statute itself, or actually more technically they list the code. There's no necessity to have a law in the code. Specifically see U.S. Code#Uncodified statutes. Private laws are not codified, but they still have the same force of law. There's no need to talk about Contempt of Congress (which is quite different) or worry about who would prosecute (the U.S. Justice Department). Shadowjams (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Line of Descent from David

There were two monarchies in history that claimed descent from King David, Ethiopia and Georgia. Do any of these monarchies have a direct genealogical line of descent in their tradition from David down to the present? David IV of Georgia is called the 78th descendant of King David so there must be some line to go by.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia articles Origin of the Bagratid dynasties and History of Armenia (Movses Khorenatsi) has some information; apparently Moses Khorenatsi has geneologies for the Bagaratid (Georgian and Armenian Royal Dynasties) going back to Adam, so that may give you some place to look for that. The Wikipedia article on the Bagrationi dynasty of Georgia also cites Sumbat Davitis-Dze and others as being a source for that genealogy. Some leads to follow. The article Solomonic dynasty has information on the Ethiopian dynasty, but it is sadly lacking in background and references. --Jayron32 18:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When we're talking about lines of descent from Adam, most scientific scholars dismiss at least parts of those as fiction. So, the question comes up as to whether any genealogies from David to now are reliable. StuRat (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not any more so. Claiming "decent from David" isn't much more reliable than how many Germanic and Norse dynasties claimed decent from Odin, with the exception that David was probably an historical figure. Genealogies of David after the Babylonian Captivity are covered at Exilarch and Davidic line, the last article contains the salient line "In general, the validity of such claims — as that of most claims to royal descent after a considerable passage of time — is difficult to check."--Jayron32 19:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the original question to be "is there a list of descendents in order", i.e. do these families have an entry for someone in each generation, or do they just have a legend saying "King ___ who founded this dynasty was the xxth descendent of Azariah son of Amaziah, but we don't know the names of everyone in between"? If I understand it correctly, the original question really isn't asking about the historicity of these accounts. 66.244.68.64 (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this isn't a question about the historic truth behind the Davidic line. It is asking if there is a complete line in cultural reckoning?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia no, but above I gave what Wikipedia articles indicate to be sources that likely do, themselves, have such a list. You would probably start looking at those original historic sources, or translations thereof, for such information. --Jayron32 21:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a third monarchy that claimed descent from King David. --Dweller (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 wrote - "Claiming "decent from David" isn't much more reliable than how many Germanic and Norse dynasties claimed decent from Odin, with the exception that David was probably an historical figure." I can understand where Jayron32 is coming from. However, interestingly enough, I actually have a friend whose family throughout the generations kept a family tree with their descendants, and it goes all the way to David. Of course, it could be fabricated, but I don't think that's likely. A lot of families keep family trees throughout the generations, and his family is one of them. It's pretty interesting. Anyway, I don't know much about the actual question, but if you're wondering about the alleged descent from David as written in the Bible (and hence the alleged descent from Adam, as that can be traced in Genesis), then Books of Chronicles gives that whole thing. Of course, whether you want to believe it or not is up to you - I'm just offering it if you want to see it from a Biblical standpoint. Hope it helps. --Jethro B 00:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is highly likely that it is, at least in part, fabricated or, at least, contains innocent mistakes. You're talking about over a 100 generations spanning thousands of years. Do you really think it's going to be flawless? Do you think nobody had an affair and pretended the resulting child was their husband's? Or that there were no gaps when nobody was filling it in and then it got filled in afterwards with someone's best guesses? That they were descended from David isn't really in doubt - when you're talking about someone that long ago, either they have no living descendents or almost everyone (at least everyone with European/Middle-Eastern descent) is their descendant (see identical ancestors point). --Tango (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This chart shows the direct line of descent from Adam to HM Queen Elizabeth II via King David and Kenneth MacAlpin. Another branch connects Abraham to George Washington. This pedigree works through the royal houses of Ireland and Scotland culminating in the House of Stuart, from whom the House of Windsor is descended (a little indirectly). This must be a different route than that taken by the pedigree preserved at Hatfield House that connects Adam to Queen Elizabeth I of England,[8] from whom the Windsors are also ~~descended~~ related (apparently they're only descended from Henry VII in the Tudor line). Alansplodge (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a text copy of the Hatfield pedigree online, but this modern chart connects both Alfred the Great and William the Conqueror to King David via Joseph of Arimathea. Apparently the Hatfield chart includes King Arthur, and I think Elizabeth would have wanted to have her line to include the Saxon kings of England. If anyone can find it, I would be very grateful. Alansplodge (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any Wikipedia editor would be able to answer this type of questions any time soon. The relevant article is Descent from antiquity, but it was recently vandalized and a major authority on the subject was driven from Wikipedia by a rabid admin. --Ghirla^-трёп- 05:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Vandalised" would be a strange way of putting it. That article, and other related articles, were full of speculative fluff. Through history, millions of people have had reasons to claim descent from Great Ancient People; taking all these claims at face value is silly. bobrayner (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Representation in the Dutch Senate and House of Representatives?

Do the special municipalities of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba get any official representation in the Dutch Senate or House of Representatives? (Or anywhere else in the government of the Netherlands, for that matter?) --CGPGrey (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so; looking around the best information I can find is at Caribbean Netherlands which indicates that the "National Office for the Caribbean Netherlands" provides all liaison between the islands and the National Government; but I can't find any information to indicate direct representation in the States-General of the Netherlands. However, the States-General article lists a connection to the template "National Legislative Bodies of the Americas" indicating some connection there. Of course, the States-General doesn't appear to be elected from single member districts, rather via party list proportional representation, so I don't know that any elected representative has a specific single constituency they represent. --Jayron32 19:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, members of the States-General do not represent any region or district any more than any other. They each represent all people that voted for their party, wherever they may live. However, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba don't have enough voters to significantly influence the outcome of the elections. Together they have about 13000 people that can vote, while the mainland has about 12.7 million, which is about 0.1%, i.e. 0.15 out of 150 seats in the Dutch House of Representatives. The Dutch senate is chosen indirectly, i.e. they are elected by the (directly elected) representatives of the 12 provinces and by the respective Island Councils of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba. The weight of the votes is proportional to the number of inhabitants they represent. - Lindert (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UN conventions and Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands

If Denmark signs and ratifies United Nations conventions do they automatically include Greenland and the Faroes or do these two "autonomous countries under the Danish Crown" have the responsibility/competence to sign separately? The specific instance I'm concerned with is the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities but answering the general principle would be useful too. Roger (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are examples when conventions do not effect Faroe or Greenland when they are for Denmark (the EU treaties are examples), but I have the feeling that in the case of Denmark the situation is: if the UN don't mention it, its Faroe, Greenland and Denmark. I checked the Dutch treaty database (not much of an authority in this case, but in my experience quite reliable); and they include Faroe and Greenland (see here)... L.tak (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the authoritive source! NOrmally (so: unless mentioned otherwise), they do include Faroe and Greenland. See the historical information section of the UN Treaty base. L.tak (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to the general principle, neither Greenland nor the Faroes appears in the list of Member states of the United Nations, nor on the list of sovereign states. Also, there is this document submitted by Denmark on behalf of Denmark and Greenland [VERY LARGE PDF] detailing Danish actions under the Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to Greenland. So barring very special circumstances, the details of which would fall under WP:CRYSTAL, the Danish signature is the one that commits Greenland and the Faroes to participation. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 19:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused. What does the Dutch treaty database have to do with Denmark? μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's mark call it resolved; we have the -very large pdf- of the Danish government and the short summary of the of UN Treaty series. (The Dutch treaty data base says the same. That is; as I said, not an authoritive source; but they simply record every treaty of interest to the Netherlands and they are good at it; that's why I sometimes go there in case of doubt; only later I found the more authoritive UN-source, that;s clearly a better one...). Rgds! L.tak (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Kind of like NOAA being responsible for the Boxing Day tsunami. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thanks everyone. Roger (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Coville Story

For the class that I'm teaching I want to have the students read a short story by Bruce Coville about people that live in a giants teeth but I can't find it anywhere on the internet or libary. Does anyone know what the story is called and where I can buy a copy of it? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.60.175 (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Search "giant's teeth bruce coville" at amazon. μηδείς (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last Will and Testament

What percentage of the USA population dies intestate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.201.84 (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here and here and here are some starts. I found these using Google and Google scholar using the phrase "Americans die intestate". Its a start for you. --Jayron32 20:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death

Why do living organisms die? Is it possible for living organisms to live forever? I do recall there was a tree that lived for hundreds of years before it died. If a living organism has or is given an infinite amount of nutrients, then can it live forever? I know it sounds like science fiction, but can one defeat death if one were to remove all natural and unnatural causes of death? Or is death really inevitable and that there will always be some sort of unknown cause of death? Cell can't function anymore? Wear-and-tear? How do philosophers justify or explain death? 140.254.226.217 (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Living organisms die because they get eaten, injured, frozen, attacked by their own species, etc. They also run out of food or water, get diseases, suffer organ failures, etc. For organisms that don't have biological immortality, senescence kills cells because the mechanism for DNA replication fails to copy a short segment every time, and when this process starts cutting off useful DNA instead of just telomeres, cellular mechanisms start failing. The primary benefit of this seems to be in preventing cancer, and it almost always works; cancer cells can only proliferate because some mutation disables the mechanism and makes themselves immortal. Nothing can live forever because the stars will eventually die due to the second law of thermodynamics, and the universe will suffer a heat death (which is actually the coldest possible death). Finally, whatever philosophers think about death is utter bullshit unless they have empirical evidence for their claims, at which point they'd be scientists. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I'll take it as "There is no purpose in life" or "The meaning of life is to create a harmonious cycle of life or to behave naturally. Whatever that is supposed to mean is up to the individual." 140.254.226.217 (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've unreddened and emblued your link (biological immorality), but its smirk-worthiness was lost in the process, damn it. Swings and roundabouts. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Biological immorality" was pretty funny, but I'd rather 140.180 pay more attention to fixing his last sentence, which is wholly unproductive. While we don't have a "philosophy of death" article as such, death and culture is a reasonable starting point. Mortality salience and existential psychology may also be of interest. Naturally, no single answer can be given to "what do philosophers think of death?"; there are innumerably many philosophical approaches. — Lomn 21:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, death scares the hell out of me! 140.254.226.217 (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that many organisms could be "designed" to live much longer than they do, but short life spans are favored by evolution, as it allows for more generations, and hence more variation in a species, which permits it to adapt more quickly and effectively to it's constantly changing environment. Some organisms, like certain salmon, are programmed to die right after they breed. StuRat (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That makes me feel better. Well, at least life has a purpose: to reproduce and help the population survive. Death, I suppose, is for a good cause. 140.254.226.217 (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an odd perspective on the whole thing. You're dead FAR longer than you'll ever be alive. Life is a blink of the eye, a drop in the ocean. That's not to say it's irrelevant or trivial or unimportant, though. The question is not whether death has a good cause, but whether life can be made meaningful and fulfilling. I can guarantee that death will come to you; but I cannot guarantee you'll have a meaningful and fulfilling life in the meantime. That's up to you. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's sad that good people have to die, it's balanced by the fact that bad people have to die also. If no one died, there would be no need to reproduce, nor any need to pass the torch to a new generation, as the old people would be around forever. Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We inevitably die because we have sex. The two are even more closely linked than most people suppose.

Bacteria reproduce asexually by splitting. Each resulting bacterium has just as good a claim to be the original as the other one does, and every bacterium can be said to be as old as its species. With sex, though, that's all out the door. Two parents contribute their genes to make a new individual. Since the parents do not live on as their own descendants, the way bacteria do, they must inevitably die.

And the sad part is, that as a member of a sexually reproducing species you are doomed to die, whether or not you personally have sex. John M Baker (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that the reason that we die (insofar as it is a ``reason) is that there's no evolutionary pressure not to do so. Put the other way around, if there were good evolutionary reasons not to die, then we wouldn't. Evolution favors species that live until their reproductive cycle is complete, but otherwise, there's no pressure to live beyond that. (Infer what you like about ``meaning of life). 128.59.163.13 (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there is a selection pressure to remain fertile for longer, though? There is such a thing as biological immortality: some people think that lobsters could live indefinitely (assuming no diseases or predators), and might even become more fertile as they age. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently staying fertile all your life is not in the biological interest of all species, as humans, especially women, don't. StuRat (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a selection pressure to remain alive and infertile for longer in humans. See grandmother hypothesis. By promoting the survival of their grandchildren, grandparents promote the propagation of their own genes, even though they do not reproduce themselves. --NorwegianBlue^talk 21:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They don't all die. Some are immortal. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That link doesn't work for me. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kant and Nietzsche's views

I cannot understand Nietzsche and Kant. It may be because of differences in manners of speaking arising through time. What were there views regarding what is right and what is wrong? Nietzsche is more interesting; of all the things I've read about him it just seems like he was a man who just put ideas and thoughts out in the open. Dd he actually believe any of the stuff he wrote? --Melab±1 ☎ 23:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both Nietzsche and Kant are quite difficult to read in the original, and they are written not only in a different style, but you're reading them in translation and in a world that isn't necessarily asking the same questions they were asking at the time. There isn't a way to summarize Nietzsche and Kant's views on "right and wrong" (or even "truth and falseness"!) in a short paragraph that wouldn't do great injustice to the nuance of their thinking. If you are looking for a nice way to dive into their thinking — or at least give you enough understanding of what their big questions are — I've found the A Very Short Introduction series to generally be pretty good. They have Kant and Nietzsche editions. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend Walter Kaufmann's translation of The Antichrist It is not at all hard to follow if you have the wider grounding that is assumed, like a familiarity with Judaism, Christianity, Ancient Rome, and Buddhism. Nietzsches' basic viewpoint is that moral systems are tools meant to achieve ends: validation of power and success (master morality) or validation of guilt and suffering (slave morality). You can read this work in two sittings, it is well worth the effort. μηδείς (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may read Schopenhauer, who was the cerebral middleman between Kant and Nietzsche. The latter was strongly under his influence. --Omidinist (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Hume could out-consume Schopenhauer and Hegel. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you suggest a specific work of Schopenhauer's to read in this light? μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely suggest his main work, The World as Will and Representation. It takes time to read, but it's worth reading. The most comprehensive exposition of his philosophy in English is Bryan Magee's The Philosophy of Schopenhauer. --Omidinist (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Kant's first critique he develops the critical method including a form of argument he calls transcendental dialectic. In the second critique he then applies this method and argument within the topic of morals. Here's a very quick account of this: Kant sees a tension between rationalists (like Leibniz) and sentimentalists (like Hume). They both recognize elements of the nature of morality, but because they misunderstand the scope and character of these elements they end up in an irreconcilable paradox. Kant gives a third way. First ask: How can some course of action be imperative? Well, if something else is already imperative, then an action could easily be seen to be imperative. For example, say it's imperative that you be at home at dinner time and you are not currently at home, then it would be imperative that you have yourself somehow conveyed to home by dinner time. Because the one action is necessary to fulfill the given imperative, then that one action is imperative. Kant calls this a hypothetical imperative, in the sense of "hypothesis" as meaning suppostion: If you suppose some imperative then a hypothetical imperative can be implied. Now go to the world of morality. A moral imperative could also be hypothetical, but then it would be at least partly implied by some prior moral imperative. Since all moral imperatives which are hypothetical must rely on some prior moral imperative, then, if there are to be moral imperatives at all, there must be a moral imperative which is not hypothetical. There must a categorical moral imperative. Well, Kant asks, how could this be? He says a lot. But the answer he ends up with is something like: Since a categorical imperative can not implied by anything prior to it, it must be implied only by the internal constraints of being such an imperative at all. I.e., the Content of a categorical moral imperative consists only of what is implied by the Form of a moral imperative. This is why Kant's ethics is sometimes called Ethical or Moral Formalism. Kant then goes to look at what it is to be an imperative, i.e, discover its form. What he discovers is that imperatives are taken to be constraints on the will of human agents. And since categorical imperatives are not hypothetical but general in application, then they are not temporary or accidental contraints, but are general constraints on the human will, like necessary laws of human rationality. From this he develops what he elsewhere calls the Categorical Imperative, and which he construes in many different ways, one of them being: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law". He says this follows because if an agent took it as a maxim to act not in universalisable way, then the imperative taken to indicate this action could not be a general constraint on the will of a human agent, because not all such agents could act so, because its not universalisable! This is actually a really amazing topic. I'm so glad you asked about this, because I get excited just thinking about it. I mean, just step back a bit, here is an extremely intelligent and studied person giving us a reasoned argument as to what is right and wrong, as to how we as human beings should be acting: How could such a topic not be of high importance? And how could such a voice not command enough respect as to be worthy of being heard out? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 3

Mombasa History

I'm currently working on the Mombasa article, and have not been able to find good history and culture resources by which to find and verify information. Does anybody have some recommendations with regard to sources? I'd also appreciate some "keywords" which I could use to search online, and get started. Thanks everybody! Van Gulik (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to point you to the history on the official city website, but then realized it is identical to Wikipedia's text. [9]. How about these books instead: Lonely Planet guide, Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century African History, Kenya: A History Since Independence, Kenya: Identity of a Nation. And for some really old stuff (I don't know whether this counts as primary sources or not), Universal history, ancient and modern: from the earliest records of time, to the general peace of 1802, A general history and collection of voyages and travels (1812), Through Masai land (1887). All of these have at least a section on the "history of Mombasa" (which was all I googled; I just used books instead of regular web search). Taknaran (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. Thank you, these look like good resources.Van Gulik (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim nations mizrahi and sephardi jews

Which Muslim nations formerly had Jewish population that they are called as Sephardi Jews in Israel? Which Muslim nations formerly had Jewish population that they are called as Mizrahi Jews in Israel?--70.29.32.229 (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa[reply]

See Mizrahi Jews for the answer. Specifically, the opening paragraph (bold is mine):

Mizrahi Jews or Mizrahim (Hebrew: מזרחים‎), also referred to as Adot HaMizrach (עֲדוֹת-הַמִּזְרָח) (Communities of the East; Mizrahi Hebrew: ʿAdot(h) Ha(m)Mizraḥ), are Jews descended from the Jewish communities of the Middle East, North Africa and the Caucasus. The term Mizrahi is used in Israel in the language of politics, media and some social scientists for Jews from mostly Arab-ruled geographies and adjacent, primarily Muslim-majority countries. This includes Jews from Iraq, Syria, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, Azerbaijan, Iran/Persia, Afghanistan, India, Uzbekistan, Kurdish areas, Northern and Eastern Sudan, as well as Ethiopia, and within and nearby Israel. Sometimes, Sephardi Jews such as Jews from Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya or Turkey are erroneously grouped into the Mizrahi category for some historical reasons.

Hope it helps. --Jethro B 01:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes Jews descended from ca. 1492 emigrants from Spain and/or who spoke Ladino are described as "Sephardi", while Jews who are neither Central-European influenced (Ashkenazi) nor Spanish influenced are called "Mizrachi". However, sometimes the distinction between Sephardi and Mizrachi is ignored. Yemen had a large Jewish community without any meaningful Spanish influences... AnonMoos (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mizrahi and sephardi jews languages

Besides Hebrew, Arabic and Persian, what other languages do Mizrahi Jews speak? Other than Arabic, Hebrew and Turkish, what other languages do Sephardi Jews speak? --65.95.106.38 (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa[reply]

Sephardi Jews also speak Spanish. 83.49.195.42 (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles on Mizrahi Jews and Sephardi Jews have sections on the respective languages spoken. You may want to use the search box (top right) to locate similar entries in the WP. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is a bit vague. People can speak any language that they learn. I'm sure there are plenty of Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews who speak sign langugage, having learned it in their life. There isn't anything that prevents people from learning a langugage. If you're asking about the traditional languages spoken, it depends on a degree which country they're from. If they're from Morocco or Italy, many will speak Italian. If they're from Syria or Egypt or Iraq, many will speak Arabic. If they're from Spain, many will speak Spanish. etc --Jethro B 20:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Ladino. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much by definition, Sephardi Jews are those whose ancestors spoke Ladino... AnonMoos (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad we agree for once. μηδείς (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jews in Bangladesh

Which city of Bangladesh have historically had Jewish population? Someone told me it was Rajshahi but I didn't believe it. --70.29.32.229 (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.32.229 (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typing "Jewish people in Bangladesh" into Google (you should try this sometime. Type exactly the question you want answered there first. It's a wealth of good information) turns up this article which states that there are between 175-3500 Jewish people in Bangladesh, depending on who you ask. At either end of that spectrum, that's a fairly tiny number. The article notes that many Jewish people in Bangladesh disguise their faith as they fear social retribution, so teasing out where most live may be difficult to do. --Jayron32 03:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good answer, but I believe the OP was referring to a few decades ago, when Bangladesh had a larger Jewish population. I could be wrong, but that's what I got from the OP writing "historically." I don't know the answer to that though. --Jethro B 03:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. In which case, a google search on History of judaism in bangladesh turns up some interesting stuff. Just this year, a former Jewish-Bangladeshi military officer was honored as a liberator of the country: [10]. Another source which looks promising to answer the OP's historical question is this one. --Jayron32 03:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia has seems to be at Baghdadi Jews... AnonMoos (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baghdad isn't in Bangladesh, though! Bangladeshi Jews is a redlink. --Tango (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you had looked at the article, "Baghdadi Jews" is a term for Jews who migrated from Baghdad at some point, apparently including a substantial fraction of former Bangladeshi Jews. In India, Baghdadi Jews are contrasted with Cochin Jews etc. AnonMoos (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Georgia building

What is the building at 3:09 of this video? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The maker of the video wrote in the comments, "That is from Batumi city at the Black Sea shore." --Jethro B 03:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but they didn't know what the building was. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the building you mean: [11] ? Unfortunately, the only caption I see is "Divlek C. at Batumi City, Added June 19, 2012", which I take to be the name of the photographer. Here's the site where I found it: [12]. You might want to contact the blogger. StuRat (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Batumi Justice House. They are apparently dancing on the roof.--Cam (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously??? That's their justice house!! It's amazing... --Jethro B 23:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notorious lawyer known for defending war criminals, drug lords, terrorists, etc..

Not Giovanni Di Stefano or Jacques Vergès. It's Ludwig, Ludger something (I'm pretty confident on the "L") and he has a von or van attached to his name, but it was added for cosmetic reasons. He might have died recently. Eisenikov (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward von Kloberg III Found it by searching for "added "von" to his name" surprisingly it's a common practice. Eisenikov (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, he was a lobbyist, not a lawyer. Rmhermen (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure "notorious" is really the right description? Everyone, even suspected drug bosses and terrorists have a right to be defended properly. Alansplodge (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Notorious" simply means famous. It carries no negative denotation whatsoever. A8875 (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to wiktionary (and two others I checked):"Widely known, especially for something bad; infamous." [13]. Interestingly, you would be right, if we were speaking medieval Latin :) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to 50 years of my usage - "notorious" has a strongly negative connotation; if you just mean "famous", say "famous"! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notorious sounds rather negative to me. My point is that a perfectly respectable lawyer has a duty to defend their clients to the best of their ability, no matter how odious the crimes that they are charged with. If they (the lawyer) fail to do that, then the whole adversarial system is flawed. Alansplodge (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A peculiarity of English, as "notorious" acquired negative connotations a few centuries ago,[14] while "notoriety" is pretty much neutral.[15] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I'd query that last statement – [16], [17]. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red, yellow, and green lights on the UN General Assembly podium

On the UN General Assembly podium there is a set of red, yellow, and green lights[18]. Is there an official statement from UN indicating its purpose? Most commentators assume it's a speech timer, but there are many flaws in that theory:

Contrary to the commonly used green, yellow, red, flashing red sequence[19], the UN one goes from green to flashing red[20] directly. The yellow blub is never used as far as I can tell.
In the above video the speaker goes on for 18 more minutes after the red light starts flashing. He essentially used more than double of his allotted time.
The light is not used at all for some speakers[21].
Speech timers are generally not visible to the audience, since it can be distracting. (Hence the question. During a boring speech all I can focus on is the blinking light.)

I'm looking for official UN documents describing the purpose of these indicator lights, or barring that, an authoritative source that describe it as a speech timer.A8875 (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found some references to the light system (the link goes to one example of a search, I tried others too with other results). Sometimes the "orange" light is referred to and sometimes not. The time limits seem to vary by event.--Cam (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thank you very much.A8875 (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad this was answered, because all I could think of was, you will find out next time The Master leads a Sontaran invasion fleet. μηδείς (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of LaSalle's 1st (Ohio River) expedition

La Salle Expeditions I have done extensive searching for dates or even "three weeks later" and such of any of his 1669 voyage south of Western New York (specifically on the Allegheny River and upper Ohio River. I have searched all the links and references on the wiki articles for any specific dates south of western New York and even found this but alas no dates or time references. Anyone have a document or journal link to the complete journey? Marketdiamond (talk) 08:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this? Starting at "In what regions" the author discusses the problem, including chronology issues and sources. He seems to conclude that there is no reliable evidence that La Salle explored the Ohio at that time. --Cam (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link! However from what I see it mostly centers on years after 1670 (1681 etc.) how far he went on the Ohio and that he didn't really discover what we now know as the Mississippi until later. I get the point though, La Salle may have been a hoaxster, for balance (and with a grain of salt) is there any similar source that by date allows for LaSalle's perspective (daily journal etc.) something that may key in the exact date he reached modern day Louisville (the falls as he calls them) and also Pittsburgh specifically in 1669-70? Thanks and that was a great read learned a lot but now I have more questions than answers now lol. Marketdiamond (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found another skeptic here with more details. Basically there is no firsthand information by La Salle or any co-travelers about the first expedition; all we have is general secondhand info that La Salle discovered the Ohio and traveled to falls on the river, which, later readers guessed, referred to the Louisville rapids. There are no journals, and according to the skeptics it's because the first expedition never happened, at least not beyond the area near the western shores of Lake Ontario.--Cam (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US presidential TV-debates

Good day all together. I am very interested in watching the TV-debates between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. I would like to watch them live but that's impossible because I live in Germany. So the debates take place in the middle of the night, therefore I have to watch it the next day. Does anyone know where I can watch them immedialtely? I doubt that someone will have uploaded it at youtube the same say. Perhaps CNN or CBS? Thanks in advance for the answers. --Jerchel (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C-SPAN will live stream it here[22].A8875 (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C-span will probably have videos online afterwards. There will also be transcripts, which are much faster to read than actually watching the videos. It might be worth watching a minute or two of video to get a look at the candidates, but watching the whole thing is in my experience a big waste of time. You get the info much faster from the transcripts. 67.117.130.72 (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paramilitary education institutes in US

Hello guys! I tried to search here and on other wikis to find a list of paramilitary education institutes in US but I could not find. Could you give me a list? - Prücsök (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The really depends on how you define "paramilitary education institutes". If you're looking for places that will teach you how to shoot a gun, most ranges will offer that. If you're looking for PMC type companies that will offer the whole training package, then take a look at Category:Security_consulting_firms and Category:Private_military_contractors.A8875 (talk) 09:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean something like a List of United States military schools and academies? 67.117.130.72 (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I though to. Thank you so much! - Prücsök (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Francisca of Portugal

Infanta Maria Francisca of Portugal's article says "A crowd of several thousand were known to have visited the village to pay their respects as her body lay at the rectory awaiting burial at the Royal Pantheon of the Braganza Dynasty...Although initially interred in Gosport Catholic Church, Maria Francisca's remains were later transferred to Trieste Cathedral in Italy, next to those of her husband and children." Where exactly was she buried? How could she be transferred from the prestigious Braganza tombs to a church in Gosport, England, then to a Church in Italy? Was she ever buried in the Braganza tombs?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the paperclip product chain is, on average, the most profitable?

On average, when normalized to a per-paperclip figure, which has the highest profit margin, paperclip manufacturers who spend money on machines (amortized over life of machine, and maintenance), materials, and energy to actually make them and then sell them to wholesalers (or directly to retailers), paperclip wholesalers who spend money to buy them from manufacturers and then sell them to retailers, or retailers who spend money to get them and then sell them to customers? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For low-priced items like this, the retailer typically makes the most profit. This is because the average customer is not going to do Internet research and compare prices at several stores before making a purchase, unlike, say, with a car. So, the retailer could sell them at a 100% markup, while, with a car dealership, this would be quite difficult. Both retailers do have the resources to compare manufacturers and choose the cheapest product. StuRat (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} Shadowjams (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does your signature require a citation? μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either because he likes it that way, OR he's commenting on the edit just above while not modifying it.[23] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree Stu. Yeah high-street retailer don't have to worry so much about product comparison on low price Items, but I imagine high street sales is a very low fraction of the total compared to the amount made from bulk sales to large businesses and offices, and if you're buying 50 million of the things, I'd bet you would want to shop around--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did mean to include an exception for large businesses, although many of them buy from wholesalers. And small businesses, like the corner bakery, are just as likely to buy the first box of paperclips they see at the local retailer as individual customers are. BTW, what does "high-street" mean here ? StuRat (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The low street is down by the docks where the working class lives and works. The high street is up the hill and out of the pollution and grime, where the nicer houses are. Shops on the high street are cleaner, have higher-quality merchandise with staff who don't spit tobacco juice on the floor, and charge more money, not least to keep the rabble away. If you are going to the high street to shop, you don't care about the price or at least are willing to pay more. In modern times, the stationery store near higher-end offices (lawyers, architects, etc.) would tend to be pricier than one in a commercial strip mall. Franamax (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, high street is Brit-speak for everyday retail sales, referring to shops in town centres. Rojomoke (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rojo gets the points, I was simply referring to the idea of going to a shop for small amounts as opposed to going to suppliers for bulk amounts, with bulk amounts being where the majority of money will be coming from--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stu is basically right, the retailers make the most profits when they make them, but they also engage in the highest risk, while manufacturers make a small but more dependable margin. This is basic economics, but I haven't been able to find an article that addresses it directly. μηδείς (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP is being led up the garden path by the simple and speculative answers above. So, first things first: I don't think any of us have ready access the the data we would need to answer the question. Not least, here will be a great deal of variation in profits made across different sectors of the paperclip supply chain, between different actors in each sector, and across different timescales for consideration of profit, such that there is no hard-and-fast answer. We can hypothesise that each link in the chain - manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer - in general cover their costs and make a profit. That means that each manages to cover their fixed and variable costs: these differ significantly in form between the three, but not in substance. The manufacturers bears the cost of materials, manufacture, overhead recovery, and repayment of investment in plant and machinery. The wholesaler bears the cost of inventory, warehousing, distribution overhead recovery and cost of sales. And the retailer bears the cost of inventory, store space, overhead recovery and the cost of sale. And although it is the case that the retailer's mark-up is likely to be way in excess of the wholesaler's mark-up, it's likely that the retailer's cost of sales and recovery of store rents is way in excess of corresponding costs for the wholesaler. In the long term, it's likely that each industry sector (manufacturing, wholeselling and retailing) has pretty much the same sort of profit to capital invested ratios, since if otherwise, one would expect the market to correct the disparity by investing more capital in the higher profit sector of the chain. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives to devaluation in the euro zone

In the past, when a national economy got in trouble, the government would devalue it. Nowadays the alternative would be reducing the wages, and put up with the outcry. But when the euro was established, did the EU thought that this would be needed? Were they aware that they were eliminating the financial instrument of devaluation and introducing something so prone to generate conflicts? OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This information was available to them. But they were also aware that there is no possibility for currency devaluation within large nations like the USA. So the more they were thinking along the lines of a United States of Europe, the more a single currency looked appropriate. What happens in the USA when the economy of one part of the country is booming and the economy in another part is in decline? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The USA is a different case. They are a monetary and fiscal unity, the EU is only a monetary one. If the economy in one part of the US is depressed, which is often the case, just compare NYC with New Mexico, you can ignore it, or compensate it a little through governmental programs, tax relieves, or grants. 83.49.195.42 (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The euro often seems to be talked about as though it is unique, but there have been many examples of fixed exchange-rate systems (such as the Bretton Woods system, which fixed the exchange rates between lots of major currencies from 1945 until 1971) and currency unions (such as the CFA franc used by many West and Central African countries). Devaluation has not been feasible for many governments, and as with everything in economics, I don't think there is any consensus on whether it is actually a useful tool. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear to me that fixed exchange-rate systems have some pretty tough drawbacks. Fiat money is the way to go for modern economies, that have to adapt, contract and expand rapidly. Comparing the euro to such system is comparing it to the Titanic, impressive but a complete disaster. Some European countries would love to use this tool of devaluation right now, even if there is no consensus as you claim. 83.49.195.42 (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While fiat money may deal better with minor problems, it can also suffer a total collapse during a depression. StuRat (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has it ever happened? I know that hyperinflation is a natural consequence of making money just because you need it. 83.49.195.42 (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but also if people lose faith in it. At some point, such a currency may need to be abandoned, pegged to a more reliable currency, etc. StuRat (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has it ever happened? Excluding the case where the government printed money to pay their debt, and not to manage the inflation and growth, have any single nation lost faith in their currency? Also excluding wars, where people tend to lose faith in government actually, and all its institutions. 83.49.195.42 (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you exclude all the conditions under which fiat currency has collapsed, you will eventually get to the conclusion that it has never collapsed. :-)

Therefore, I will concede that, in a world without war and without incompetent and/or corrupt politicians, fiat money is the best choice. StuRat (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Zimbabwe dollar is a recent example. Roger (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of universities confronting the media

Hi all, I was having a discussion with a friend about "what would happen if.." and the scenario was basically this: a student researcher does some dangerous research, and goes missing in a foreign country. Who do the media confront? I thought the supervisor would be first in the firing line. She thought the vice chancellor. Does anyone know of cases involving universities facing this kind of unwanted attention, and what was the role the media played? I'd be interested in cases from anywhere, pref first world countries, where the university was in some kind of media storm, and the issue was something like negligence. As far as I understand it, in most countries, any lawsuit would be against the institution, but wherever the media frenzy is directed, that is where heads are most likely to roll. IBE (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't most universities (at least larger ones) have some kind of press officer to deal with the media? Beyond that, it would depend on the circumstances: for example, the media might blame the vice-chancellor if the problem was caused by university-wide policies, or somebody more junior if they appeared to be personally responsible for what happened. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad how many google hits there are for "missing university student". In lieu of a news story of the kind you are looking for (until someone else turns one up), here is some more general info similar to 130.88.99.231's point: The university will have codes both for relations with student researchers and for fieldwork. Here are two examples from the University of Edinburgh: Code of practice for supervising grad students, Health and safety code, fieldwork section. Presumably before blame is assigned the media would check whether the university had policies and if they were followed.Taknaran (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone does dangerous research in a dangerous country, ignoring any travel advisories, and something happens. Would that really be a big media thing, let alone a firing/liability issue for a university (assuming they didn't pretend it was a safe trip?) Unilynx (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I can find with missing students no one blames the university. American student missing in Spain, Iranian-American student missing in Iran, American student arrested in Syria, American student missing in Syria. Everything I can find with criticism of universities is for controversial course content, lab practices (usually involving animals) or anti-discrimination policies on campus. Universities sued for negligence are usually for sports safety, hazing incidents or medical treatment. Perhaps your scenario is uncommon or has not happened.--184.147.123.169 (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...would that be a big media thing?" Maybe, since research has to be approved by the supervisors, and an ethics committee. The question might arise about their culpability, and by implication, that of the university. If it is just someone going there as a visiting student, different story, but it seems possible that there would be questions about others allowing it. I agree it's strange, but somehow duty of care seems to pop up quite often. A case does not have to be watertight for the issue to cause problems, since the threat of a lawsuit is enough to scare a lot of people. IBE (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite ever more detailed procedures, minor problems with fieldwork crop up all the time and major ones from time to time. The answer to your question is that press queries are directed through the press office. Individual members of staff may be instructed not to speak to journalists on that question. (They can carry on talking to journalists about unrelated research.) Then an internal investigation, kept strictly at arm's length from the press, will try to work out who, if anyone, messed up. It's not the case that if some journalist opines that "the supervisor must be to blame" the university will share that assessment. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've pretty much summed it up, although there's quite a difference between "some journalist opines" and a real media frenzy directed at some particular target. So presumably we (me and my friend in the discussion) were both wrong, at least in that the media wouldn't get to do much "confronting", regardless of who they thought was at fault. IBE (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are fewer people selling their homes because of the financial/housing crisis?

See above. If you wanna post a paragraph on it make sure you put 'yes' or 'no' first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.113.87 (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if we consider the difference before and after the housing bubble. See: here, the last graph titled "Existing Home Sales (NSA)" (as in "not seasonally adjusted", so the raw numbers). You'll see the sharp drop between 2006 and 2007, and then it stays at that same comparatively low rate for all years following. --Jayron32 17:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. You'd think that such a simple question would be easy to track down the answer to, but for somebody like myself with only a very basic grasp of the subject... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.113.87 (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a rethink of the question is in order. If you have only a very basic grasp of the subject, how do you know it can even be answered with a simplistic "yes/no" answer. It may be yes in some places and no in others - you didn't specify what part of the world you're interested in. It may vary over time - you didn't specify any time period. And what's your definition of "selling"? Is it an actual sale as evidenced by an exchange of contracts, or is it merely a desire to sell as evidenced by a "For Sale" sign. Are you talking about just investment properties, just the family home, or both? And what does "fewer people" mean? Fewer than what, and compared to when? What if it's fewer in some places but more in others? Is the sale of a house counted as 1 for the house, or 6 for the family of six people who are all moving? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, more people are offering their house for sale, but that doesn't mean they are indeed selling it. 83.49.195.42 (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where? (See Jack's post above.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. μηδείς (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "indeed selling houses" is exactly what Jayron's source says (for the US market, per Jack's comments re: clarification). There are far fewer sales now (2011-2012) than during the peak of the bubble (2005-2006), though today's sales are comparable to levels a decade ago. Conversely, there are far fewer houses on the market now than at any point post-bubble (though levels are comparable to before and during the bubble), so there are not demonstrably more houses being offered for sale. — Lomn 21:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is anecdotal, but since 2011 my family has sold property, and my neighbors to my left have sold, and my right have offered, and my biggest client offered their properties. That's a lot of selling and not so much closing. I can't make any rational sense of the fact that home values have collapsed unless one figures that demand has fallen far below supply. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where? (See Jack's post above.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NJ & NY. (Also MA, sold, in 2009 at a good price.) μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 4

Would "Howl" have been known if it hadn't been subject to a court action?

In 1955, according to our article, no one had heard of Allen Ginsberg. In 1957 Howl became the object of a court case for obscenity, defended by the ACLU, brought to national attention. Question: is this court case the only reason why this became known? Would anyone otherwise have been aware of Ginsberg, or Jack Kerouac (whose first work was bought in 1957), or William S. Burroughs (according to the article Ginsberg was "instrumental" in getting his first work published), or anyone in the "Beat Generation"? And if so, does this illustrate some general law or principle of historical development (beyond the Streisand Effect?) and if so what? Wnt (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,

dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, . . .

I don't see much point in speculative questions of this sort. Looie496 (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty pointless waste of time. OK for chatting over a cup of coffee or a mug of beer, but not really appropriate for the RD. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that a true "alternative history" can go anywhere - maybe the 60s never happen and we all go up in nuclear war; maybe some other dissidents come to prominence with a more reasoned philosophy, etc. But I think you can analyze the situation in a very narrow way, simply asking whether some people in this group were making it into the public eye independently at the time when the court case began. Wnt (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to crucify Wnt for the question, although it is speculative as worded. He could have asked which contemporaries are there of Ginsberg who were compared to him without being accused of obscenity, etc. He did ask whether Kerouac's and Burrough's fame is seen as derivative of theirs. Referring to critics of these authors might be helpful. And next time he might do better by asking what reviewers of and works about these writers might help me research the question whether.... μηδείς (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of question can be asked about anything in history. Would the Kennedys still have had a lot of impact if JFK had died on PT-109? Would Regis Philbin still be nationally known if he had never worked on the Joey Bishop Show? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think counterfactual historical questions are necessarily a bad thing; they can highlight the highly contingent nature of history, and separating out events of random chance from broader historical forces is well within the range of academic discussion (see, e.g., Carr's famous What Is History?, which is entirely devoted to thinking about such things). Out of curiosity I did a search on Ginsberg's name across the newspapers in ProQuest's historical archives (which includes a number of national newspapers in their entirety, like the New York Times and the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times). What sticks out immediately is that even though Ginsberg's 1957 trial was covered, his real name-recognition period — where he's showing up in the papers more than 20 times a year) is in the mid-to-late 1960s, with a peak in 1969 (where his named showed up 170 times). This leads me to think that while the Howl trial may have put him on the map in some circles, much of his fame as Allen Ginsberg derived from a much later period.

On the question of Kerouac and Burroughs, I suspect that they'd have found a route into the "Beat" scene (which was quite independent of Ginsberg) one way or another. Whether Beat would have taken off without Ginsberg is an open question, but it strikes me that it was a movement larger than Ginsberg himself, and while the Howl trial may have brought it some new attention, I suspect that the San Francisco scene would have largely gone on the way it was already going at the time that happened. I don't think that Beat became enormously popular in the 1950s anyway; like many "scenes", it had its circles of devotees at the time but it lives on much larger in the nostalgia of later eras than it ever did when it was contemporary. (Compare also hippies, disco, etc., both of which were relatively small scenes compared to the population as a whole, but when people think back to "1960s" or "1970s" they make it seem like that was all there was.) --Mr.98 (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

¶ There is a nub to this question that isn't counter-factual, alternative or speculative history, perhaps better expressed as something vaguely like "how much importance did the San Francisco case against the publisher and distributor of Howl have for Allen Ginsberg's future career and renown?" Allen Ginsberg was the son of two prominent poets, he was able to get William Carlos Williams to write a foreword to Howl, and the City Lights Press of Lawrence Ferlinghetti was his publisher. Many of his close literary associates like Burroughs and Kerouac achieved some place on their own merits (or demerits). None of this of course automatically makes Howl important, although it indicates that Allen Ginsberg was no nobody. But Howl in my highly-inexpert and antique opinion is, for all its eccentricities, by far the most important (perhaps the only really important) American poem written since 1950. What's more difficult to assess is how important the Beat Generation (a small though significant group with a small though significant following even in its time) will seem in fifty years. Everyone's heard of Impressionism, but it's far harder to judge how lasting and how important were the respective contributions of the Pre-Raphaelites, Futurism, Vorticism, the Ashcan School, Socialist Realism, the Bloomsbury Group, or Op Art. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi diaspora North America

Why Bangladeshis tend to migrate more to America than Canada? What does America have that Canada doesn't that Bangladeshis like about? Education system? health system? lifestyle? --70.31.19.100 (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa[reply]

More people. --Jayron32 04:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And more stuff. Futurist110 (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warmer weather?-85.119.27.27 (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More Bangladeshis. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate Jayron's point: Using the estimates given in our article on Bangladeshi diaspora, the number of Bangladeshis per 100,000 people in Canada is actually greater than the corresponding number in the US by a factor of about 1.48 (there are about 70.4 Bangladeshis per 100,000 people living in Canada, and about 47.7 Bangladeshis per 100,000 people living in the US). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a false analysis. When considering whether more Bangladeshis have migrated to the USA or Canada, it's the absolute numbers that matter. The question was not which country has the higher proportion of Bangladeshis in its overall population. We could probably find a country whose proportion of Bangladeshis to the total population dwarfs 70.4 per 100,000, but its raw numbers of Bangladeshis is quite low compared to the raw numbers in either the USA or Canada. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the percentage of Bangladeshis within a given population is more likely to reflect the presence of established Bangladeshi communities, infrastructure, cultural programs, media etc than absolute numbers. We are talking about two huge countries of similar distance from Bangladesh, both geographically and culturally. The country you suggest "we could probably find" might be the Maldives for example, where there exist a possible 10,000 Bangladeshis per 100,000 inhabitants. A dwarfing figure indeed, but not really comparable in this context, for many reasons. You wrote "More Bangladeshis" as a possible answer to this question, but I think it's more relevant how many people of an immigrant's culture might be found near where they live, not how many live within the entire country's long borders. YMMV. (By the way, I do not think the factor of 1.48 is really that significant either; if anything, it puts both countries, Canada and the US, in the same league of attractivity. I just don't think the question "what does America have that Canada doesn't" is a question than can be derived from the fact that there are more Bangladeshi immigrants to the US than to Canada in terms of absolute numbers). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh recognition map

Is there a map where it shows the nations and the date of recognizing Bangladesh?--70.31.19.100 (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.19.100 (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

historic flag lapel pin

I'm trying to find a lapel pin depicting the Grand Union Flag. Where's a good place to begin?142.255.103.121 (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I googled [grand union flag lapel pins] and a number of entries came up. This particular one is on the blacklist for some reason, but I would think there are others: www aliexpress com / wholesale / wholesale-united-states-grand-union-flag-lapel-pins.html ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklist?142.255.103.121 (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Blacklist" is a list of websites that are banned on Wikipedia for one reason or another... in the case of a blacklisted commercial website, the reason is usually because some idiot tried to turn Wikipedia into a platform for advertising... by, for example, spamming a link to the website into lots and lots of articles. Don't know if that's what happened with the one that Bugs is talking about, but it would not surprise me. Blueboar (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the first time I've seen this kind of thing, where I cited some website and it rejected the post after I hit "save". You're probably right that someone tried to spam it here at some point. That's a recurrent problem. And the way around it, in this situation, is to state the text of the link without linking to it, and then the reader can decide what to do with it, if anything. I recommend the OP google the subject and look for it. I would think there would be a number of sites that would feature historical US Flag pins of various kinds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there another good place to find what I'm looking for?142.255.103.121 (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean besides the internet? Well, are there any historical sites or museums near you? You could see if they have something like that and/or if they have any idea how to find such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

German (Nazi) Army 3-finger salute

In the first episode of The World at War there is a clip showing members of the German Army swearing a personal oath of allegiance to Hitler. They are shown making a 3-fingered salute with the thumb and first two fingers of the right hand held in front of the chest at shoulder level with the elbow bent. It looks similar to the Serbian salute. What are the origins and symbolism of this salute, and why was it used in preference to the German military salute, or the Hitler salute? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this gesture? Neither out Hitler oath or Nazi salute article mention it. A quick look at Google didn't bring anything to light either. Alansplodge (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unusual to raise only three fingers when swearing an oath in Germany and it isn't a "Nazi salute". See for example this picture of federal president Gustav Heinemann's oath of office in 1969: [24] -- Bgfx (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Category:Oaths on Commons. You'll see some two finger oaths; here is a 1700 exposition on the meaning of the two-finger oath. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nazi salute does contain a brief mention of this alternate gesture, called the Kühnen salute. The de:WP interprets this as the symbol for the letter W, meaning Widerstand = resistance. Details, if you can read the language, can be found in the German entry Hitlergruß--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit strange that it's named after a post-war neo-Nazi, and what exactly were the Wermacht of 1933 resisting? The mystery deepens. A reference to the salute (but no explanation) is in A Child of Hitler: Germany in the Days When God Wore a Swastika, By Alfons Heck who describes joining the Hitler Youth; "..the oath we swore with our left hand gripping the flag and three fingers of our right extended to the sky..." (p.8). Alansplodge (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go... The swearing in of 32 the new Swiss Guards at the Vatican; "Each of the recruits puts their left hand on the flag and takes the oath with 3 fingers raised, representing the Trinity." So not a specifically Nazi gesture at all. See also the Vatican website which says that the custom dates back to 06 May 1527; "Then one by one the new recruits are called by name. Each one advances alone, and with his left hand he grasps the Guarďs standard, holding high his right hand with three fingers open, as a symbol of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he confirms the oath:..." Alansplodge (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answers deal with different gestures. The soldiers and the Hitler youth swore using the middle-European oath gesture, see de:Schwurhand. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that makes sense, but the Swiss Guard gesture seems identical[25]. And here's William Tell doing the same thing.[26]]. Alansplodge (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)]. Alansplodge (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt's quote

Could someone remind the phrase where Franklin Roosevelt (or possibly Theodore) said that the country where the citizens have their own houses is invincible? Don't know the exact wording though. Thanks. 176.241.247.17 (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was FDR in a speech to the United States Savings and Loan League in 1942. The full quotation appears to be "[A] nation of homeowners, of people who own a real share in their own land, is unconquerable." See here. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, since the first mention I could find of this quote is from a book published in 1950, it's possible the quote is apocryphal, or at least synthesised. It's also frequently misquoted, especially by Realtors as "A nation of homeowners is unconquerable". - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this dates it precisely on page 408 and cites it in the next day's NY Times. meltBanana 15:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so 1942. Follow-up question from a curious non-American: Was the US a nation of homeowners back then? Or was it a goal? HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Federal Housing Administration was devoted to increasing homeownership among Americans at that time (though it also got the U.S. federal government involved in encouraging economic racial discrimination in a whole new way...). AnonMoos (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's from a message sent by the President to a special war conference of the League in Chicago and read (apparently by someone else) to the opening session on Nov. 16, 1942. Here's a contemporary news report [27] --Cam (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naming discretion in academic publishing

I was just looking at Arvind Mithal's Wikipedia article, and see that he goes by just the name Arvind to the point that all of his published works that I can see cite him only as Arvind, without including his last name, which he has, which is Mithal (if the Wikipedia article is correct). What he wants to do is not at all my question, but I just wonder about the majority of peer-reviewed publications, at least in the field of computer science, if they have stated policy regarding the procedure of applying an author's desired name to the article written. Obviously, they're letting Arvind go by simply Arvind. Is this an exception? If some computer scientist named Peter Sanders (I just made that up) wrote a paper that was reviewed as highly relevant and well-written and by all degrees was determined "this needs to be in the next issue of Communications of the ACM!" And Mr. Sanders adamantly wanted to go by only "Pete," is it likely (not invitation to speculation, cite policy) it could show up on the page "[Article Title] By Pete, University of [whatever]"? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't anyone call a person what they wish to be called? --Jayron32 14:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm not asking why or why not, I'm asking if the publishers have policy on this and Arvind is a granted exception or not. What if someone, despite any assumption of such professionals by default being absolutely not frivolous, were one whose papers were undeniably deemed of the highest importance and needed to be published, but he was a weird person and demanded to go by "#apofijawpeoi5rj"? What if thirty computer scientists all wanted to go by only "Pete"? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a blog, but it has some relevent information on the topic. Skimming that and a few other things I found in some google searches, it appears that a person has some latitude in choosing their "publishing name" in terms of which form (Nicknames, initials, middle names, etc.) they use, with the expectation that the name is unique to them and that they will use the same name for their whole career. I'm sure there are exceptions to both, but I don't think your hypothetical has any need to be dealt with. Do you have evidence that there is a rash of "Petes" who all publish only under that name? So far you've presented a single author who uses a name unique to him. That seems to be all that academic publishing requires. --Jayron32 14:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, and your statements are fair enough. But how common is the "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it, and absolutely not wonder about quite unlikely scenarios." attitude when attempting to structure policy in large organizations? I don't have experience being on teams developing policies for humans, but I do know that with computer programs, people still worry about things that might happen once in a million times (granted, computers are quicker than humans, so maybe there's that). 20.137.18.53 (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it relates only to Wikipedia, but there are principles here like Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Which is not to say that, in general, there aren't lots of organizations which invent rules on unlikely scenarios; there's a lot of people who invent lots of stuff just to justify their own jobs, not because what they create is valuable or useful (i.e. the entire mission statement industry). So yeah, I wouldn't discount that such rules may exist with the caveats that a) they aren't necessary and b) after a good-faith Google search using a wide variety of search terms, I turned up bubkis. --Jayron32 15:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While probably ideal, "unique ... and ... will use the same name for their whole career" certainly isn't a requirement, isn't necessarily expected, but it certainly makes things easier for everyone involved. There are many cases where there are multiple people publishing under the same name. Name changes are also seen, frequently with women using both their maiden name early in the career (while they're single), then switching to their married name. I can't think of examples off-hand, but I'd imagine the reverse (going from married name to maiden name) happens occasionally on divorce. The other typical variation you see is middle name issues. The same person may publish as "John Jacob Smith", "John J. Smith", or "John Smith", depending on the article. Of course, it behooves a researcher to pick a single distinct name and stick with it, as it makes matching articles to researchers much easier. There have been some efforts to establish a unique identifier for academic publishing (see, for example, ORCID, ResearcherID, etc.), though those haven't yet gained traction. -- 205.175.124.30 (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The case of Perri 6 may be worth looking at here. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I worked at an academic journal for a number of years. We had no pre-ordained policy on such things — people could pretty much call themselves what they wanted. We never had anyone try to call themselves something unusual, though. We wouldn't have bothered making up a policy ahead of time, though, since this is very unusual in academic publishing.

Separately, one might be interested in the case of Nicolas Bourbaki. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolved problems

According to this Hilbert's problems. The DARPA has shown 23 unsolved math problems (not the same 23 problems as of Hilbert). Where can I see them?65.128.190.136 (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "DARPA 23 problems" produced this. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article gives two references for this, the first of which lists all the problems (the second was a broken link to the official announcement, which doesn't seem to be on DARPA's website any more, but you can see it here). Though it does seem a bit odd for them to compare these to Hilbert's problems: most of them are very applied (in some cases, like "what are the fundamental laws of biology?", they aren't really about maths at all) and are very vague, whereas most of Hilbert's problems are about pure maths and ask specific questions (or at least there were intended to be specific). 81.98.43.107 (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Watts Audio Recording

I was wondering where I could find the audio from this video and other speeches like it minus the music. I have found a few sites that have archives of Alan Watts' lectures but none with this specific one. The video description is misleading and has no information and searching any variation of the speech yields no results. --67.86.147.91 (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No luck with that audio but I found a Watts talk very similar to this one here (starting 7:49).--Cam (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secret self-haters

Are there any other cases similar to those of Csanad Szegedi and Ola and Pawel here (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/23/poland.jewish/index.html) where someone is prejudiced against a certain ethnic group or race and then discovers that he/she himself/herself is actually a member of this ethnic group or race? Futurist110 (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler.
Sleigh (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The claims that Hitler was of Jewish ancestry (which I assume you are referring to) are dubious, to say the least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think that Hitler had any Roma or Slavic ancestry either. Futurist110 (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Fischer somewhat fits the premise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Zhirinovsky whom I remember having said "My mother was Russian, my father was a lawyer". (His father was Jewish) Another gem, quoted in the article: "Why should I reject Russian blood, Russian culture, Russian land, and fall in love with the Jewish people only because of that single drop of blood that my father left in my mother's body?" ---Sluzzelin talk 00:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: Sorry, this is perhaps not what you're asking, since I suspect Zhirinovsky knew all along and didn't discover his ancestry after having formed his prejudice. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah, I meant that one needs to be unaware of his/her ethnic or racial heritage at the time of his/her prejudice towards this ethnicity/or race being formed. Bobby Fischer and Vladimir Zhirinovsky were always aware that they were ethnically Jewish. Also, Béla Imrédy might or might not fit this bill. He had some Jewish ancestry, but I don't know whether or not he was aware of it before forming his prejudice towards Jews. Futurist110 (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, but what was the race of the first humans? If they were all black (due to being from Sub-Saharan Africa), then every white supremacist would be an example of this if you'd go far enough back due to the one drop rule. Futurist110 (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you read Race (human classification)? I have seen no evidence that white supremacy has ever limited its beliefs to the constraints of science or logic. YMMV. Bielle (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're obviously unfamiliar with the subject. See scientific racism and eugenics. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're obviously unfamiliar with science. Well, maybe not you, but them. Just sayin'. --Jayron32 03:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Scientific racism" is, at best, pseudoscience; the article you have linked is quite clear on that. As for eugenics, the concept that any given race is inherently superior to any other has been debunked; the other article you have linked is quite clear on that. My points stand. Bielle (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed my point. If the established science was racist (which it was), and the average Joe was racist because they believed in the established science, then the average Joe could have constrained himself to "the constraints of science or logic" and still been racist. Don't believe that you're inherently superior to your ancestors. You can't possibly independently verify every scientific belief you hold about the world; you have to trust scientists to be truthful and objective, and if they're not, you'd be just as clueless as the eugenics proponents from 100 years ago. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point by the OP about the race of the first humans, but I think the simplest answer, as Bielle's link shows, is that they had no "race" as such, because race involves classification into distinct categories. Since the term includes cultural factors and a concept of ancestry, there is no way of saying how we would classify them if they existed today. It depends a little too much on history and circumstance. Races have emerged since the first humans, and whatever the term represents, it is usually accepted as meaningful. An Arab, for example, is different from a Persian (or a Westerner), regardless of whether you use culture, language, or mitochondrial DNA. For this reason, I don't think stuff about the first humans is terribly relevant to the original question, and we risk getting lost in argument about this detail. IBE (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several films, notably Blade Runner and The Conformist, spring to mind. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Blade Runner thing (that Deckard was really a Replicant) is basically a fan-fic invention. AFAIK, both Philip K. Dick (the original author) and Ridley Scott (the film director) have denied that there was any intent to imply that Deckard was a Replicant. --Jayron32 12:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not quite right Jayron: According to Themes_in_Blade_Runner#Deckard:_human_or_replicant in the book he's explicitly human, and in the movie his status is ambiguous. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 5

Presidential debate myth

I have seen many references to the Kennedy and Nixon debate and the contrasting attitudes of the radio and television audiences. Yet, I recall seeing this conclusion described as a myth without foundation. Are there any proper studies that debunk this notion and if so, why does it continue to be propagated by mainstream press? Ankh.Morpork 00:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's been conventional wisdom for decades. There's no question that JFK looked a lot better on camera that night than Nixon did. How they would know for sure what the radio audience thought is hard to say, but maybe they did some polling. Googling [jfk nixon debate radio] brings up many items that parrot the conventional wisdom, but some of them seem to be hedging, at best. For what it's worth, Nixon had a deeper voice and lacked any discernible regiona accent, so people unfamiliar with them might have thought Nixon sounded better than JFK did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there were four separate televised debates in fall 1960 between Nixon and Kennedy so it does depend which one your speaking of, but after his presidency Nixon did state to the affect that "more then what you say it matters how you look on television". Also anyone know when and where the very very first non-televised JFK v Nixon debate was held. (hint: the fall of 1960 was debates 2,3,4 and 5 for them). Marketdiamond (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gender neutral for John Doe and Jane Roe

Not asking for legal advice, just asking if there is a standard practice in a complaint or other legal document to make gender neutral the John Doe and Jane Roe examples when a subjects gender is in question (not known not going into the whole LGBT thing), and yes I understand it is very very rare, I have done some extensive googling nothing yet. Thanks. Marketdiamond (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think such persons are refered to as "Doe" without first name, as in a Doe subpoena, which is filed against persons whose identity are unknown. This used to be very rare, but in the past 20 years because of the internet, Doe subpoenas are common, as a person can often be identified by their IP address and user agents (as Checkusers at Wikipedia do) so one could identify a particular perpetrator of a cyber crime uniquely by those means, but the gender of that person would be entirely unknown. --Jayron32 03:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe No. 3 where an unknown defendant was identified without a gendered first name; just as "Doe No. 3" --Jayron32 03:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, Doe is a deer - a female deer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And a Ray is a drop of golden sun. --Jayron32 12:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although the sun has set on their season. In a further irony, consider the Roe of a Ray. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for Advance Directives

I would like to learn more about the topic by going to the original source but could not find it with this citation: Choice in Dying (now: Partnership in Caring). Choice in Dying: an historical perspective. CID 1035-30th Street, N.W. Washington, DC. 2007

Can someone help me find the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.59.158 (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Near as I can tell with several google searches, "Choice in Dying" was an organization that advocated for patients dealing with end-of-life care issues. It later merged with an organization called "Partnership for Caring", which is hard to find any information on (except the merger); though I think a few links lead me to believe that the the organization is now called "Caring Connections" and its home page is at http://www.caringinfo.org . Their history page is here, which shows the various permutations of the organization. Presumably the document titled "Choice in Dying: an historical perspective" was published a long time ago by the now several-times defunct organization "Choice in Dying", as the "Caring Connections" organization seems to be the modern successor to that, you would probably need to contact that organization to try to locate that document. Their website has a "contact us" page here. I hope that helps. --Jayron32 06:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking English in America

I got told a story that in the early day of America, they (not sure if it was the whole population of the time or just the government) had a vote to decide what language to speak because alot of the early settlers where from different countries (ie France, Germany, Italy, etc) and English was supposed to have won the vote by a small margin. Is this true in any way ? --80.254.146.140 (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without taking the time to look it up, I seem to remember that it was more of one colony, state or commonwealth (I think Pennsylvania) choosing English over German by the narrowest of margins. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not English. German lost the vote to be the second official language of Congress.
Sleigh (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See German language in the United States#German as the official US language myth and Muhlenberg legend. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even nowadays the US still doesn't have a federal official language, only a de facto language. "I got told a story" says it all, BTW. It's just an urban legend. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whats it like to be a beautifull woman?

Yo refdeskers. Surely im not the only unnatractive, sexually and socially incompetent strait[ish] man who's wondered rather enviously what it's like to be a really hot chick? I mean they never have to chat-up anyone, they merely select from a long line of prospective suitors, and select the one who most meets their sexual, emotional or intellectual needs. Sounds a hell of a lot easier and more pleasant than being us, doesnt it guys? So what i'm looking for is a piece of high-quality, intelligent, "high-brow" writing on what its like to be a hot woman, presumably but not necessarily written by said woman, which is available online for free. When I say not necessarily, perhaps there is some academic writing on the subject, based on interviews or focus groups? Of course im aware that it probably isnt as utopian as i initially suggested, for instance constantly being stared at by all men, or having to fend off neanderthalls when on a night out, could be very tiresome or distressing. Theres a popular notion that average-looking women dislike really hot women out of jealousy; is this the case? Cos I would guess that other girls might actually want to be friends with the hot girl, as it would give them entry to the "popular"-clique, and give them access to the hot girl's rejected suitors. Are very attractive women happier than other people? Finally, whilst not wishing to set off the pedo-alarm*, im also interested in what its like for a girl when it first dawns on her that all men think shes really hot. Please remember that i'm not interested in your own personal views, i'm merely looking to be directed to the aforementioned online sources. And i guess these topics have been covered in fiction, but if possible could we avoid all that Mr Darcy, Crinoline stuff, unless it was written by a smoking-hot chick and is considered to be quasi-autobiographical

If only one of these trusty devices had been fitted in Jimmy Saville's dressing room. Willy turner (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of questionable premises here. Aside from very famous, wealthy and/or powerful people (I imagine), is there really anyone who can "select from a long line of prospective suitors"? Attractiveness is subjective, so I doubt there are any girls for whom "all men think shes really hot", even if we limit it to straight and bi men. Also, what makes you think that the experiences of an extremely attractive woman would be very different from the experiences of an extremely attractive man? Anyway, you might be interested in body image: people who are considered attractive by others don't necessarily consider themselves to be attractive. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Samantha Brick Rojomoke (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it doesn't just go 1 way, it goes both ways. The question should be more like "what it likes to be an attractive person?" A good example of a boy who benefit A LOT from his good looking is Justin Bieber, even though his talent is at mediocre level compare to other singers. The only reason that made him so success is his good looking that attracted so many teenager girls, who acting crazy because of him. As you can see like 99% of his fans are girls, immature girls as some people may say. So as my conclusion: no matter of gender you are, attractive always work. However there are downsides for being hot, especially for women.65.128.190.136 (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

left-wing party ideologies

Which political ideologies are mostly fall on the left of the political spectrum? So far, I know that Social Democracy is a left-wing ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.153 (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on where you set the center. In Europe, Social Democracy is centrist, and typically embraced not only by "Social Democratic" parties, but also by most moderate conservative parties. Have you read Left–right politics? Originally, of course, "The Right" supported the right of the Bourbon kings to run France into the ground at the expense of the Third estate, while "The Left" was happy to call the King "citoyen Capet" and to leave the aristocracy separated from their heads. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

left-wing parties Europe

I remember that there was a question about Liberal Party of Canada counterparts in Europe. My question is quite similar. My question is that in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Italy, Spain and Portugal, is there any political parties that are left wing and not communism? and I don't want to know green politics in those nations.--174.89.43.153 (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.153 (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbians and short hair

Why is there this correlation? Does this stem from a desire to identify with an established social image or from an innate urge to appear more masculine? Why would this be the case? Ankh.Morpork 15:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd question the premise. Do you have any sources? If anything, short hair seems to go with modern, less traditional views, but that is hardly indicative of sexual orientation (there probably is a correlation in the other direction - LGBT people are less likely to have a very traditional understanding of gender roles). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that some lesbians would try looking more masculine, and thus make their hair short. However, this isn't a general rule--some lesbians have longer hair, while some straight women have shorter hair. Futurist110 (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My wife's mother keeps her hair short. She's not a lesbian, last I knew. My father-in-law doesn't appear to believe she is. --Jayron32 15:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I know people against gun control that aren't Republican. Ankh.Morpork 16:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

political rivals Denmark, UK, France, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium Spain and Portugal

Is there any main political rivalry in the following nations that I mentioned above? --174.89.43.153 (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa[reply]

See, for example, our list of political parties in Denmark. There will be similar lists for each of the other countries that you mention. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Federal language vs national language

What is the difference?65.128.190.136 (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]