Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 15

Difference between two types of companies

What's the difference between companies who do not have any source of income besides donations, and companies that do have income besides donations (i.e. YMCA memberships), but which do not use that money to pay its employees or owners? Buggie111 (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no formal designation. A non-profit does not have owners, but those who are in control can be paid as staff, but that is rarely done.[1] There are some exceptions - the president of the NRA has almost a million dollar salary (and does not contribute to the NRA).[2] Apteva (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If you asking how they are different legally, or how they are named, that may depend on the jurisdiction. In particular, Apteva's statement that "A non-profit does not have owners" is arguably not true in the UK. See Company limited by guarantee. --ColinFine (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A company limited by guarantee has members, rather than owners. It will be written into the governing documents that they have no entitlement to a share of profits. They get a vote at the AGM, but that's about it - I'm not sure that can be considered to have any value, so it can't really be considered a possession. --Tango (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Most non-profits have several income streams - diversifying your income makes it more reliable. In addition to membership fees, they might hold jumble sales, sell goods or services connected with their charitable purpose (the Red Cross makes money from first aid courses, for example). Few charities only have donations for income. --Tango (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Non profit is generally used as a term for tax status, although states may have specific designations for not-for profit. However they're still corporations. For example, United Way Worldwide is incorporated in New York as a "domestic not-for-profit corporation." Shadowjams (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Royal Union of the Pacific Nations

Is this video for real? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Atooi is a micronation type of thing being asserted by some Native Hawaiians. It is not, in fact, "a UN recognized Polynesian Sovereign Nation" as they claim; amusingly enough they managed to register as an NGO[3] but that's as far as their recognition goes. The Kingdom of Atooi is not officially recognized by any sovereign states and their authority is rejected by US courts[4][5]. Dncsky (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I am more surprised by the charade of monarchs and royals they assembled from all of Oceania.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

What's a UGO? I couldn't find anything on that page that explained, and it's not linked at Ugo. Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops, it's supposed to be NGO. Sorry about the confusion, my apologies.Dncsky (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay; no problem. I just guessed it to be something like "Unrecognised Governmental Organisation", although that begged the question of how something could get registered as being unrecognised. Nyttend (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

See Hawaiian sovereignty movement#The Polynesian Kingdom of Atooi. Duoduoduo (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

How did they get all those Polynesian royals to come to a micronation? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Aid money must be spent on Made in USA goods

US gives military aid to Israel with the attached stipulation that at least 75% of the aid must be spent on US made military equiment[6][7][8]. My question is, is the 75% part actually true? If so, which law contained this stipulation? I realize this is a controversial topic but please don't soapbox; I'm just looking for a single link to the relevant statute.Dncsky (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The US policy of tied aid to foreign countries is fairly well known [9] and when it comes to developmental and other such assistance to developing countries at least, fairly controversial (as atested in both sources). However I don't really get what you mean 'law' or 'statute', aid is mostly a matter of international treaties and agreements. Unless there is something in US law which either forbids or requires such stipulations then the 'law' and 'statutes' are irrelevant, anyone who accepts such aid will be bound by whatever agreement or treaty they signed as part of accepting the aid and if they refuse to abide by such agreements they may find future aid cut off or other consequences. Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I had the mistaken impression that it was a house bill that doled out "X amount of money for X nation" and I was trying to track down said bill. It honestly never occurred to me that it could've been a treaty; must've been a brainfart. I'm just trying to track down the exact text that said the "75%" thing. Are these treaties and/or agreements public?Dncsky (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not saying there is no statutory requirement, I'm simply saying there is no reason why there has to be. As per below, this isn't really what we're talking about since we're referring to military aid but [10] gives an an example of how up to recently, the United States Agency for International Development would only spend money on US manufacturers even though a statutory requirement was removed in 1993. Nil Einne (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, my misunderstanding then. I'm just trying to win an internet argument here and I'm looking for an authoritative source to quote the "75%" number from. Lots have articles contain that figure but I'm looking for the actual law or treaty.Dncsky (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW our article Israel–United States military relations suggests Israel is actually unique here, normal US military aid which appears to be what we're talking about must entirely be spent with US manufacturers. Nil Einne (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, normally it's 100%, but for Israel it's 75%, which gives me more hope of tracking down that number.Dncsky (talk) 09:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I may have found (one version of) it:

...That of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less than $406,000,000 shall be made available for grants only for Jordan and not less than $1,000,000,000 shall be available for grants only for Israel: Provided further, That the funds appropriated by this paragraph for Israel shall be disbursed within 30 days of the enactment of this Act: Provided further, That to the extent that the Government of Israel requests that funds be used for such purposes, grants made available for Israel by this paragraph shall, as agreed to by the United States and Israel, be available for advanced weapons systems, of which not less than $263,000,000 shall be available for the procurement in Israel of defense articles and defense services, including research and development:[11]...

1-$263,000,000/$1,000,000,000 roughly equals to 75%. Some other law, which I'm still looking for, stipulates that all US aid money must be spent on US-made goods. The "shall be available for the procurement in Israel of defense articles and defense services" rider basically allows 26.3% of the fund to be spent on Israeli-made equipment. I don't read legalese so good so someone please tell me if this interpretation is in the right ballpark or not. Dncsky (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there any picture of Adam Lanza?

Unlike other shootings, police has not yet released a picture of the gunman. I think that the picture of the young man in sunglasses is his older brother Ryan. Keeeith (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, check google images. There was an earlier confusion between him and his brother, but his real picture is out there. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Luther

Luther presented a theology that everyone interprets the text as he chooses. How did he responded to those who claimed that he had not read right the Scripture? And where can I read more about it? --84.110.173.27 (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Your question assumes there is some authority (like the Pope) whose interpretation is better. Luther rejected that idea. Some people will get the scriptures right, and others will get it wrong, whether they are popes or not. StuRat (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See False premise and Loaded question. You've started your question with a statement which is not itself valid. Luther's theology does not state that everyone interprets the text of the Bible as he chooses. Theology of Martin Luther is probably something you should familiarize yourself with before you ask questions based on incorrect assumptions. The principle you seem to be misunderstanding is sola scriptura, which only states that the Word of God (being the Bible) is supreme, and that the Bible does not require any external texts or authority to be understood correctly. That doesn't mean that anyone can interpret the Bible any way they wish, that's a facile and incorrect understanding of sola scriptura. There are correct and incorrect ways to understand what is in the Bible; but sola scriptura states that you don't need to use external texts or authority to elucidate the correct understanding; the Bible contains within itself enough to be understood correctly. --Jayron32 18:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That philosophy seems questionable to me. The Bible directly contradicts itself in many places, so different people will take different parts of it as gospel, and ignore the rest. There is no one universal way to read it, whether you're a pope or not. StuRat (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's the point: The Pope doesn't have a special position in understanding the Bible. The issue is not whether or not the Bible can be perfectly understood (it can't, every human is fallible, and so will make errors in their understanding), but whether the Bible can be sufficiently understood. Sola scriptura only says that no other writing or doctrine can correct the Bible; that the Bible itself is 100% correct and complete. It doesn't say that I can read the Bible and thus be 100% correct in understanding it, but that isn't the fault of the Bible. --Jayron32 18:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think Luther was quite as liberal as you seem to claim. He believed that certain authorities were not following the scripture. His response was "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.". Perhaps someone else can recommend some reading for you. Dbfirs 18:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Can anybody remember the shooting in Canada where the gunman had a mohawk haircut?

Thank you if you know, I am looking for it. Keeeith (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Dawson College shooting? ---Sluzzelin talk 18:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That's it!, thank you!. Keeeith (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this info Keeith. I didn't know about this shooting perpetrated by a gunman with a mohawk haircut. I didn't even know that shootings also take place outside the US, or that gunmen sometimes have mohawk haircuts.

Many of the worst shootings were outside the US, like the Port Arthur massacre (Australia). StuRat (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

List of rampage killers is useful for these sorts of comparisons. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That's amazing Sluzzelin, you are as good as google (keywords: shooting canada gunman mohawk haircut). OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Who controls the grounds of the U.S. Capitol Building?

The following appears in the article about the recent Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting:

[Obama] ordered flags to be flown at half-staff at the White House and other US federal government facilities worldwide in respect for the victims.[12] Speaker of the House John Boehner ordered flags be flown at half-staff at the United States Capitol as well.[13]

I've looked through the articles on United States Capitol and Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and can't find any indication of the answer: why and how, under what constitutional authority, does the Speaker hold this sort of sovereignty over the Capitol Building, while the President controls all other federal facilities? Kane5187 (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that a simple case of separation of powers? OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that's the principle behind it, but I'm curious to see if there's anything (and there may not be) about when it was administratively or judicially determined that the physical property of the Capitol is in the Speaker's domain (keeping in mind that the Capitol building includes the Senate, too, of which the Speaker is not a member). Not much addressed here... Kane5187 (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Likewise, there's nothing about Chief Justice Roberts making a half-mast declaration for the Supreme Court building - would he, or the President make that call? Kane5187 (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

See below: the Supreme Court lies on the Capitol Complex, so in theory the decision would have been the same one that Boehner made. The Supreme Court for many years met in the Capitol building itself, before its own building was constructed elsewhere on the grounds. --Jayron32 20:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The United States Capitol Complex is under the jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol, which is itself under the jurisdiction of the Congress. So only Congress has the power to formally declare things like lowering the staffs of the flags on the Capitol Complex. That raises the question of why Boehner has precedence over his Senatorial equivalent. The best answer I can find is that his Senatorial equivalent is Joe Biden, who is Vice President of the United States and thus, by that role, also President of the Senate. The VP is a member of the Executive Branch, and NOT himself a legislator. Second-in-command at the Senate is the President pro tempore of the United States Senate (Daniel Inouye) who ranks behind the Speaker in both the United States presidential line of succession and the United States order of precedence, neither of which I suppose has any official sway here, except to note that there seems to be some sense that the highest ranking representative (the Speaker) outranks the highest ranking Senator (the President pro tempore) in several places, and so may get to be the one who gets to make the decisions on matters like this. --Jayron32 20:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent answer - thank you! Kane5187 (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The United States Flag Code article indicates that half-staff orders are the prerogative of the President. But I can't find that in the United States Flag Code itself. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: Daniel Inouye is no longer the President pro tempore, or anything else. He's gone to the great congress in the sky. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

amphigory

What means A? From its context it is term of poetic or literary discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Pearlman(1933) (talk • contribs) 21:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense verse: [14]. StuRat (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Volcán de Agua name

Regarding Volcán de Agua, as to the origin of the name, I didn't see anything in the article as to how the volcano got associated with water, but I did read in the Guatemala book of the National Geographic Countries of the World series for children "The Maya-the country's native people-called one of the volcanoes in their empire Guhatezmalha, or 'Mountain That Vomits Water.'" How could a volcano have gotten a reputation for vomiting water? According to the linked article, it is a stratovolcano, which spews magma, which is easily discernible from water. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

From the article: "As the lahar produced a destructive flood of water, this prompted the modern name "Volcán de Agua" meaning "Volcano of Water", in contrast to the nearby "Volcán de Fuego" or "Volcano of Fire". " OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, kind of like when trying to find something at the supermarket, I can make things be right in front of me by making myself a fool by asking. If I hadn't made myself a fool, it wouldn't have been right there :) 67.163.109.173 (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

See lahar and a picture of the result in one case File:Armero aftermath Marso.jpg. Mikenorton (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Royal numbering

I've noticed an interesting discrepancy in royal numbering. Some rulers, like Paul I of Russia, are called "the first" when they are the only one of their name to rule; others, like John of England, are not. I understand that it is the wish of some to be called "the first" (e.g. John Paul I), but I am unsure as to whether Paul or other "first" monarchs demanded it, as well. dci | TALK 22:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth was just plain Elizabeth until Elizabeth II came along. King John of England was the first, last and only King John of England. The key question, assuming there was never actually a Paul II of Russia, was when did they start calling him Paul I? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It comes down to tradition and prerogative. It is worth noting that British Monarchs currently base their numbering from the Norman Conquest and use the English, not Scottish, line for their numbering, so you get some quirks like Edward VIII of the United Kingdom actually being the tenth king Edward (Edward the Martyr and Edward the Confessor are not counted). You also have weirdness like the current King of Sweden, who is officially Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, nominally the 16th Charles/Carl of Sweden, but really only the ninth King of that name; the first Charles was retroactively numbered Charles VII. Some countries number lone monarchs as "The first", like Russia and Albania (Zog I prefered the numeral despite being the only one). Others do not. --Jayron32 23:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I've seen "Paul I" frequently. He's not the only one; I own a (very poor condition) coin inscribed "Umberto I, Re d'Italia", and of course nobody knew for sure that there was going to be an Umberto II. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This matter is discussed at Monarchical ordinal#"The first".

Re the United Kingdom: It is no longer the case that "British Monarchs ... use the English, not Scottish, line for their numbering", Jayron. From Monarchical ordinal#Ordinals and the Acts of Union 1707:

• In order to avoid controversy, it was suggested by Winston Churchill that, in the future, the higher of the two numerals from the English and Scottish sequences would always be used. So, theoretically, any future British King Edward would be given the number IX, even though there have only been two (or three) previous Edwards in Scotland, but any future King Robert would be given the number IV, even though he would be the first Robert to reign in England.

This policy was adopted before QEII acceded to the throne in 1952, and the choice of "Elizabeth II" was in accordance with the policy. The Scottish people who objected to her title, and considered she should be regarded as "Elizabeth I" in Scotland, were acting in ignorance of the policy change. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for the clarification Jack! --Jayron32 00:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Now that that's out of the way, indulge me while I amuse myself. What the UK does about the titles of its monarchs is its business alone. Its decisions don't apply as of right to any of the other Commonwealth realms. If an overseas realm wants to emulate British practice in some respect, that is its prerogative. My understanding of the Statute of Westminster is that the 16 nations must all have the same monarch and the same rules of succession at any given moment, but there's nothing to say they can't give the monarch different titles. They do anyway. See List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II. The Queen's formal title in New Zealand is:

• "Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith",

but in Papua New Guinea is:

• "Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Papua New Guinea and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth".

Quite different already. I don't think there's any reason, technically, why they couldn't take these differences further, and have her known as Gertrude IX in one country, Sandra XIII in another, Felicity III in another, and Bronwyn IV in yet another. They probably wouldn't do this in practice, though. (lol) But this admitted absurdity just shows up what little freedom the Queen actually has. We common people take for granted that we have the right to change our names whenever we like, but the Queen has no such power. Her choice of name is subject to the approval of the government. When her father died, had she advised she wished to be known as Mary III in honour of her grandmother (Mary being the third of her given names), her Prime Minister could have said "No, Ma'am, with respect, I'd prefer you to be known as Elizabeth II", and she would have had to comply. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the Queen "having no such power". See the article "Mountbatten-Windsor" and this link regarding her family name. Gabbe (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Those are all about her and her family's surname, whereas I'm talking about her regnal name. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Canada and Germany automobile safety testing agreement

From BMW_M3: "In 1994 agreements existed between Canada and several countries in Europe which allowed any car authorized in one participating country to legally be sold in any of the others.". Is this actually true? It's tagged as citation needed and there's no associated references. Then again such an agreement does make sense, seeing as how most developed countries have essentially the same set of crash testing rules and there's no point in duplicating the same tests. Dncsky (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that German cars need to pass a battery of crash tests to be sold in the US. Some time ago that proved to be quite embarrassing for some German manufacturers, since even their luxury models couldn't pass them. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go ahead and strike out that erroneous assumption of mine. BTW, do you remember the model of the luxury vehicle that you're talking about?Dncsky (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Connecticut shooting

I understand that Adam Lanza killed his mother at their residence and he then drove the car to Sandy Hook, but the article fails to explain why Ryan Lanza was there too. Why was he there? did he drive with his brother? is he an accomplice? what was he doing there? Keeeith (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

From a perfunctory reading of the case, Adam Lanza had some form of ID of his brother on him when he died, therefore the confusion. If you want a more reliable version, you'll have to wait until the dust settles down. There are just too many people talking about it and just based on a handful of facts, some of them very dubious. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe Ryan Lanza wasn't "there", at the school, but was easy to find. HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

From what I've seen in the media, Ryan Lanza seems to have been at work in Hoboken, NJ at the time of the shooting. AnonMoos (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Keeith, why aren't you raising this question at the appropriate talk page: Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Because that is not the appropriate talk page. That is for discussion of improvements to the article, and this is a question on facts requiring reference, hence it is in the proper place. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

However it's the sort of question that should be answered in the article. And in fact it was, right in the WP:LEDE [15] with references. In such a case, suggesting a living person was an accomplice with absolutely no evidence and when our article (and hundreds of other news sources) already explain any old confusion, is an incredibly bad idea whether her on the RD or elsewhere, and not what the RD is for at all. Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The answer is that Ryan was not there. He was at work, in New York City. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

More guns?

Is there any evidence to support the view that more guns, including concealed weapons, will help prevent incidents like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting? Astronaut (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

More/less guns, shooting video-games, access to affordable mental health, violent films: these are all topics for discussion that arise again and again after any spree shooting, but are not to be discussed here on the RD. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not an inappropriate query, the asker's just curious as to the existence of sources regarding that view. He's not pressing any inflammatory dialogue. dci | TALK 23:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You are right that the question could have an appropriate answer, but such questions tend to lead to a big discussion here. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I get your point. Perhaps this would be best addressed at the particular user's talk page, in case anyone knows the answer; that way unhelpful or partisan remarks can be avoided here. dci | TALK 00:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That, or everyone could just agree to abide by the reference desk guidelines. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you DCI2026. I deliberately asked for evidence in support of the view, not a discussion. I expect links to sources such as news reports and scholarly papers and so on, not a free-flowing debate on the pros and cons of gun control - something that is adaquately covered by articles such as Gun politics in the United States but does not answer my qustion. Astronaut (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• I suppose John Lott might be of some interest to you; I am not well-versed in these matters, but his work seems to support a more-guns viewpoint. dci | TALK 00:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I found this paper; Multiple Victim Public Shootings] written by John Lott in 1996 and revised in 2000, in which he presents the evidence to support his case. I'm having less luck with the counter-argument. Alansplodge (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Here we go; White Paper: The Case for Gun Policy Reforms (October 2012) from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Alansplodge (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Two of the most cited examples of CCW holders stopping mass shootings are Pearl High School shooting and Appalachian School of Law shooting. In both examples there were indeed legal gun owners on the scene. Some people claim that those legal gun owners stopped the bloodshed and thus CCW is good defense against mass shootings. However the truth is that in both cases the rouge shooter was subdued physically and the CCW wasn't even fired. AFAIK no mass shooter was ever incapacitated by a CCW holder. Though arguably all the civilians returning fire at Charles Whitman could've had a suppression effect on him. Dncsky (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

To get a balanced view, you should also look for evidence that more guns lead to additional incidents. Thus, it's possible that more guns may increase the number, but decrease the severity, of such incidents. StuRat (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

How so? About the severity. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe the theory is that if innocent people at a shooting have concealed weapons, they can kill the shooter before he kills too many people. It works in some western movies and cop shows, maybe. Of course, if any of those people with the right to carry concealed weapons have a brain snap at any time, there's just another shooting. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There's also the possibility that the police just arriving on the scene will confuse the armed vigilantes with the shooter. Multiple groups of armed vigilantes could also misidentify each other as the shooter. Dncsky (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a mark of a sick society that people feel the need to carry weapons just in case they happen to be close to where the next shooting spree occurs, and they might be able to help out? Whatever their positive intention may be, aren't they accepting that these events have become commonplace, to the point where they cannot trust their law enforcement authorities anymore and feel the need to take the law into their own hands? What has gone so terribly wrong? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the idea of the people solving their own problems, versus waiting for "authorities", is a very old one. Police departments only go back a couple centuries. Before that, it was up to the citizens of a community to either arrest or kill anyone who committed a crime. And concepts like a citizen's arrest still exist in many places, as does the concept of a "well regulated citizen militia" to defend against internal and external threats. StuRat (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Harking back to what obtained a couple of centuries ago will get you into very serious hot water. How about a leg amputation without any anaesthetic, Stu?

What I mean is that, if you see someone on a shooting spree in some public place, the default thought has never been "Oh, I'll just pull out the loaded gun that I always carry around with me for use in exactly this type of situation, and shoot the fucker". Are you saying that's the way it should be? "People solving their own problems", indeed. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If you're asking my opinion, then, while I expect that having everyone pack a gun would limit deaths in (rare) situations like this, it would also dramatically increase shooting deaths overall. If I was convinced that more guns would reduce deaths, then I would be all in favor of those citizens in good mental health, without a criminal record, packing guns, yes. The police can't be everywhere at once. StuRat (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like double-speak to me. From your first sentence, I get that you believe people should not generally be carrying guns around, because the increased deaths would far outweigh any lives saved. But then you talk about what you would be in favour of if you had a different opinion to what you just said - except, you don't have that opinion, so why talk about it? Or, am I missing something? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying I object to your attitude that "somebody else should solve our problems for us" (in this case, the police), although I don't support the idea of arming everyone. To give a different example, whenever I see an incorrect label at the grocery store, I rip it right off the shelf, and/or cross out the incorrect info, and write in the correct info. If I waited in line to complain to somebody, I expect they would ignore me entirely. StuRat (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Then you're objecting to something I never said or wrote or thought, and I object to your use of quote marks in your depiction of my alleged attitude. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, my apologies if I misread your comments. StuRat (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Having provided a couple of "links to sources such as... scholarly papers", I have taken the liberty of putting a "resolved" tag at the end of the thread. I think it's wise to curtail the discussion here, unless there are other germane external sources that editors would like to add. Alansplodge (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Thank you Alan. The sources are just what I was looking for. The question is indeed resolved. Astronaut (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

December 16

Are there any professional political scientists who adhere to this so called "Perestroika Movement"?

This movement was born just in the year 2000, but it does not seem to have much popularity in the field it represents. So I suppose there are some notable academic figures that believes and supports it. And if it is no longer well received today what are the other political science movements that carry the same beliefs and arguments of the Perestroika Movement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 03:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I love the lede to Perestroika Movement (political science), which says, in an inaccessible way, that the movement is about making politics more accessible. StuRat (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... What's a "non-specialist academic"? Someone who lectures postgraduates on General Studies? Tevildo (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they need to use simple terms. Or should they eschew polysyllabic locutions ? :-) StuRat (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ever since mathematical techniques started finding their way into political science, there's been tension between the math-oriented types and the non-math types. I think there are still plenty of both types and always will be, which in my view is a good thing. I don't think the Perestroika Movement that began in 2000 was at all a new thing, but rather a flare-up of the tension that dates back to the 1970s. Incidentally, economics went through a similar process when math entered it in earnest in roughly the 1950s and until maybe the 1980s; by now, and long since, the math types are in the vast majority in economics. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Roswell UFO incident

"However, numerous high-profile UFO researchers discount the possibility that the incident had anything to do with aliens." Is it mean that many high profile UFO researchers believe that the incident had nothing to do with aliens? Or it means they do believe in the incident being involved with aliens. I think the sentence itself is hard to understand.174.20.99.196 (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't seem vague to me. It means they don't believe any aliens are involved. StuRat (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you're having difficulty with the word discount. See meaning 4 of [16]. --ColinFine (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

UFO doesn't necessarily mean "alien." Though that's the popular view, UFO watchers run the gamut from those who believe all UFO sighting to be aliens; those who think they're extra-dimensional beings; those who believe they are spirits (in the supernatural sense); those who think it's all government super-secret projects; to those who think they're lizard-men from inside the Earth, which is hollow. And any mix in-between. Given that there's no solid evidence behind most sightings, you'll find any number of hypotheses about their nature. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The lizard-human hypothesis is the most hilarious thing I've even heard in my life. However, I do have to admit that he does have a good story to tell regarding lizard-human.184.97.227.164 (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if that nut-job was the inspiration for the South Park "crab men who live underground" episode. StuRat (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Antikythera mechanism

This thing was built in 1st century BCE and it wasn't until the 14th century ACE, something like this was being built again. I mean this is simply shocking to me. In 1,500 years, we haven't advanced in bit in this specific kind of device. I mean after 1,500 years, we, humans, still were incapable of producing a better device. The ancient Greeks with absolutely genius, considering all the philosophies thinking and scientific advancements they have accomplished. I wonder why after the ancient Greek collapsed then why there were no more Greek genius? Why human advancement has grew little to nothing (nothing major) since like the 1st century until the renaissance?174.20.99.196 (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Greeks had a genius for mathematics and philosophy, but they were rather sporadic and erratic in translating this into practical inventions that would benefit people. Heron of Alexandria seems to have been the pre-eminent Greek engineer in non-construction, non-military fields, but the majority of his inventions seem to have been temple tricks, for impressing devout but naïve worshippers at temples. The term banausos, literally "craftsman", was used as an insult among many educated ancient Greeks... AnonMoos (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Beyond pointing you at History of technology, I'm not sure there is much we can do to answer you. The Reference desk is not a place for canvassing opinions. --ColinFine (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not looking for an opinion. I wonder if there is a valid scientific reason why humans stop advance much in such a long period of time like over 1500 years. Something that would make sense like mutation that makes human genetic less smart for 1,000 years until we got smarter again or the Greeks were simply just superior smarter by some unknown factors. I'm looking for something valid explanation that is agreed among scientists.174.20.10.159 (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I would also recommend taking a look at Idea of Progress. It is by no means self-evident that "progress", particularly the development of more advanced technologies, is necessarily a good thing. If you have food on the table, does it matter that the fields are ploughed by oxen rather than tractors? If you have books to read, does it matter if they're printed or hand-written? True, technological advance means that _more_ people have these things, but if the powerful have all they need, where's the incentive to go any further? Tevildo (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's true that the powerful have all they need or want but how about the poor and middle class? I can make the same argument for the ancient Greeks. What made the ancient Greek a lot of advancement than the rest of the world until much later on? What is their incentive? If they had incentives to progress then why people stopped having incentive to progress for like 1,500 years after the ancient Greek collapsed?174.20.10.159 (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI, there is no "ACE" era. You want BC and AD, "before Christ" and "anno Domini", or BCE and CE, "before the common era" and "common era". Nyttend (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

See Dark Ages (historiography). --Dweller (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Your premise is not correct. Technological advancements continued in the Roman Empire after the 1st century. See, for example, Water wheel. It is true that technological advance came to a near standstill in Europe between about the 5th century and the 12th century, because European society experienced a civilizational collapse and a dramatic loss of social complexity. Specialized technologies depend on a detailed division of labor that exists only in complex societies. However, technological innovation continued in other civilizations. The Islamic civilization made advances in mathematics and chemistry that were fundamental to subsequent European technological advances, and Arabs made important advancements in the development of the astrolabe. No doubt the premodern civilization with the richest technological development, though, was China. Chinese technology achieved a number of advances beginning in ancient times and continuing through a period contemporary with the European middle ages, without which European Renaissance and early modern technological advances would not have been possible. These include technologies such as the compass, paper, gunpowder, and printing, among many others. Chinese technological development continued right through the period when technological development came to a halt in Europe and provided a foundation for later European developments. It's also not true that Europe saw no technological advance between antiquity and the Renaissance. See Medieval technology. Marco polo (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I never say Europe saw no technological advance between antiquity and the Renaissance. Indeed they have advanced but little compare to what the Romans or the Greeks have done. According to what I have learned, the Roman or the Greek have built a much more magnificent palace, city and so on... Compare to those of Europe before the Renaissance. After all, those Europeans were all descendants of barbarian Germanic tribe (no offend intend, I do admit that later on the Europeans will have the greatest technologies that enable them to conquer the whole world at one point). I feel like human kind actually has been in a leap backward for over 1,000 years. 2 objects with the same technology but were made 1,500 years apart tells us a great deal about it. You're also right about that advancement continue on through other civilization but I feel like there is a big disconnection between the those technology, they were very independent. If those technologies were more connected such as the Chinese were exposed to Greek and Roman and Islamic technology and so on... Then I think we could have been on the Moon much sooner than 1969. Lol I actually was talking off topic of what I was originally asked. I guess the technology halt in Europe was caused by the barbarian Germanic tribes that successfully conquer the Roman.174.20.10.159 (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems we have about the classical era is that very, very, little of it's writing has survived. Imagine the commentary upon and predecessors to Archimedes's and Pythagorus's writings and works which must have existed and were lost. Claudius wrote a grammar of the Etruscan language. Can you imagine if that had survived?

The issue with the Classics mentioned above is the denigration of "shop work" and the prevalence of slave labor. Why invest money on R&D when there was no concept of patent and no return on investment and a glut of manual labor? (PS, anyone who isn't absolutely enthralled by the existence of the antikythera device is entirely ignorant of human history and its significance.) μηδείς (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but the OP's point is that it _wasn't_ significant. Whoever made it didn't go on to develop a clock or an adding machine or a bicycle or anything _useful_, and astrologers got on perfectly well without mechanical assistance for the next 2000 years. Tevildo (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Medeis has spoken! So may it be written, so may it be done! -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

See also Library of Alexandria. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The attitude a culture has towards science is critical. In parts of Ancient Greece (like Athens) and Rome, being a scientist was something to be admired. Less so in medieval Europe, where smart people were more likely to be steered towards The Church. Unfortunately, in the US today, science is also under threat from those who don't want to believe in global warming, evolution, etc. Thus, a large portion of the US is developing a contempt for science and scientists. I'm sure China will once again take over as we slide back into the dark ages. StuRat (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The ancient Greeks admired philosophers, mathematicians (including geometers), and astronomers; they often had more ambiguous attitudes towards those who actually worked with their hands to determine the properties of physical materials (something which Aristotle seems to have avoided). AnonMoos (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Some scholars believe that the reason why "whoever made it didn't go on to develop a clock or an adding machine or a bicycle or anything useful" is because they were unfortunately killed by a Roman soldier, but the "or anything useful" is totally mistaken. --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know enough about this to say, but my feeling is that the Dark Ages business is terribly exaggerated. Just because some Gauls had some guys with bows looking over their shoulders at a Roman fort on the hill doesn't mean that they were spending their time chatting about the natural philosophy of Pliny or the medical ideas of Dioscorides. Just like in the present day, the scientists ended up being drawn to where the funding was, namely, the Islamic Caliphates, which controlled many of Rome's foremost intellectual provinces in Egypt, Turkey, and Greece anyway. Wnt (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This makes sense to me! It wouldn't make any sense if all the sudden, all the intelligent people just disappeared for like over 1,000 years!184.97.227.164 (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As our article (Dark Ages (historiography)) says, modern historians have revised their view of the concept of a "Dark Ages" and the term is no longer widely used in academia, because it is so flawed. Nonetheless, a large portion of the literate world was badly affected by the collapse of the Roman Empire and the anarchy that followed it. Someone with potential as a scientist born in, say, an area of eastern England affected by the Viking raids, is not going to have his potential developed simply because patronage for the sciences flourishes in Arabia. The Renaissance was led by people wanting to recapture the glories of the Roman era, as the name "Renaissance" itself implies, see Renaissance. --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In Ireland the monks were the ones who helped with their engineering knowledge in the construction of things like ports and irrigation works, t wasn't just religious works they kept alive. Dmcq (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Mass shooters killing themselves

With the Columbine High School shootings, Virginia Tech shootings, the Colorado theater shootings, and now the Connecticut school shootings, a question that had been bothering me for such a long time popped up again: exactly why do almost all shooting perpetrators (at least in the United States) commit suicide at the end of their shooting spree? I asked a similar question to this a few months back (in the wake of a shooting at the Empire State Building), but that was about if shooters plan their suicide from the start, not the reasons why they do so. And in mass shootings outside the United States, are perpetrators killing themselves common? I asked this since the perpetrator of the mass shooting in Norway a few years back didn't commit suicide, and IIRC he's now in prison. And have ever been studies or investigations as to the reasons why mass shooters commit suicide? For example, during the investigation into the Columbine High School massacre, did the investigators investigate why the perpetrators killed themselves? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

To avoid punishment is the first thing that comes up to my mind, but who knows, as an American I must say that our society is in a moral uproar and I don't understand why. Keeeith (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"They want to appear to be superhuman and controlling and powerful, to go out in a hail of bullets... The whole thing is a suicide even though you are killing people in the process. Suicidal people often internalise their anger, but with murder/suicides, the anger is turned outwards as well as inwards." forensic psychologist Dr Keith Ashcroft quoted in this news report; The Psychology Behind Mass Killing Sprees. Alansplodge (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You may also be interested in THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MASS KILLERS by Dr Raj Persaud. Alansplodge (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Finally (from me), a news report; The Depressive and the Psychopath: At last we know why the Columbine killers did it. Alansplodge (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

By killing themselves they frustrate the entire society, which wants to know why, and there will be no satisfactory answer. My guess is that if the perp could articulate it, he would say, "Why? Because I can." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless the shooter is in Norway, he can expect to spend a long time in prison or to be executed. Suicide seems to be a much better alternative. Obviously, a perpetrator could also decide whether to kill nor to commit suicide, but they don't seem to be the most rational thinkers. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

My take on it is that basically the psychos know it'll never be as good again and don't fear death, and the saddos are just expressing their rage and frustration before killing themselves anyway. It is the psychos who stay alive like the one in Norway that are strange,but he seems to be a bit delusional as well and thinks he can write his own Mein Kampf and is destined to lead the Norwegian people. Dmcq (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes it is a frustrated suicide by cop (they expected someone would come kill them but didn't so they do it themselves), sometimes they plan to suicide and the Norway shooting didn't plan suicide because he apparently doesn't think he did anything wrong. Many different reason in different incidents. Rmhermen (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A person without empathy has problems understanding what 'wrong' means except insofar as it affects them badly. Dmcq (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Since nobody linked it: Murder–suicide. Staecker (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem inconsistent to me. Suppose someone decides that there is no place for him in society - that all the good resources of the earth are taken by the wealthy, popular, those somehow connected to them, and he doesn't have a decent way to live, and he doesn't want to endure whatever indignities are heaped upon him. Well, if things have reached the point where he feels he doesn't have a right to live, why should anyone else? How can a person choose to commit violence against himself and not commit violence against those who he feels have driven him to that point? What mystifies me is not that some suicides take on this form, but rather that some do not. Wnt (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The motivations for suicide are many and various; take for example the perception that it is oneself, and not the world, that is out of step - that one is somehow useless or unworthy. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The shooting in Norway was different from the general wave of school shootings, since the former was politically motivated and thus in effect constituted terror. It was more akin to something like the 2008 Mumbai attacks, where the perpetrators didn't commit suicide but was killed by the police, with the exception of one who has apprehended. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Anders Breivik may be delusional, but he played his role with an evil brilliance, sadly. For him, being captured alive was what one expert termed "the media exploitation phase", where he got to preach his warped ideology to the world, and forcefully profess his sanity. Slobodan Milosevic may have not planned to spend his final days in a courtroom, but he used a similar tactic, forcefully arguing his moral innocence against charges of mass murder. 58.111.175.170 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

In a way, it's the ultimate troll: perform a horrible act of violence then, by killing themselves, remove the ability for society to learn why. For someone who may feel powerless, this is one hell of way to take control of an entire society for a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Most people who did this kind of stuff are apparently CRAZY. They want to kill themselves as to challenge the society and they probably also think it is the best way out. After committed such a terrible act, it is better to just die than to live. There are just a hell lot of more trouble to live, everyone will despise you and many more consequences... Before those crazy people did those things, they probably got to the point where living isn't matter to them anymore. Suicide seems to be the best way out for those kind of crazy.184.97.227.164 (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Dismissing such behaviour as crazy is just to disengage your intelligence. As the OP says there is an evident pattern which implies that it is not crazy as in random. People do not normally do things they don't want to do so why would you think they would want to die because of having done what they willingly do? They either want to do it or it is just part of something else they want to do. Some might be told to do it by their voices but as far as I can see that's not frequent. Dmcq (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

was the mach 3 turbo razor changed?

simple question. was the mach 3 turbo razor changed by Gilette (for example, after fusion or fusion proglide came out, so as not to be as good anymore so people will upgrade). I bought new cartridges and think they're much worse than they used to be (also a different color, grey like the fusion head which does not match my black mach3 handle). It could just be me though, so I'd like to know whether it was materially changed. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It might be you bought a non-genuine cartridge, which turned out to be much worse. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's assume I didn't as I bought it at a very respectable chain (Douglas). 178.48.114.143 (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's possible. However, they certainly wouldn't announce such a strategy publicly. So, only an independent lab could analyze them to determine what, if anything, is now worse about them. I doubt if that will happen anytime soon. So, my suggestion is that you go with another brand. I use disposable razors, so I don't make any investment in any given company beyond that package, and can change brands without losing any money. StuRat (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm asking about actual reality not a hypothetical. I assume enthusiasts would have blogged about it or something (after all, it's not a "post experience good") but could you find references like that? I couldn't. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

In general, there seems to be a short-coming in any transaction which requires a proprietary device to be "resupplied". If only that company is allowed to provide them, it seems like the rates, quality, and duration of the resupply should be stated up-front. Otherwise, they can raise the rates dramatically, lower the quality, or simply stop supplying anything at all for the device. For a more expensive purchase, consider PC operating systems, like Windows. At some point Microsoft will stop supporting that O/S, but they don't state what that period is up-front. That this isn't required is a defect in contract law, in my opinion. The contract basically comes down to "I will pay you X, and in return you will provide me Y, for as long as you care to." Even mobile home rentals work that way, where they rent you the land under the mobile home they sold you, for whatever rates and period they choose. There the theory is that you can move the home elsewhere, but the cost is prohibitive and the new landlord will just raise the land rental rates again. StuRat (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Stu, I'm asking about whether this has happened recently with this particular product. Your philosophical observation remains highly valued. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I still wouldn't discount the possibility of a counterfeit. If it were from ebay, I'd even take it for granted. But even in Douglas, which is a franchise, that's possible. Who knows what the owner of a concrete store does to increase its profit. Make pictures of the product and package and ask Gillette what they think about and what problems you'd have with it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Nativity scene components

I spotted this scene while walking around in Richmond, Indiana two days ago. To my surprise, this was all there was: the fence at the bottom of the photo surrounded an area of bare grass, and nowhere around could I see any statues or 2D images. Is it appropriate to call this a nativity scene, or is there some other term that's better? Note that there's some problem with the image; it sometimes loads and sometimes doesn't. Nyttend (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I suspect it's not finished yet. They may also only display the "good stuff" at certain times and dates, to minimize the risk of theft and/or vandalism. The only other names I know for a nativity are a "crèche" or "manger scene", but those terms include everything, as well. StuRat (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't it just be a joke? --Dweller (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like one to me. Alansplodge (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

My favourite "No room at the inn" joke: A small boy is furious that he has been denied the male lead of Saint Joseph in his school Nativity play, and is given the walk-on part of the Innkeeper instead. On the day of the performance, Mary and Joseph arrive in Bethlehem. "Is there any room at the inn?" they ask. "Of course there is!" says the Innkeeper with a big grin, "Come right inside and make yourselves at home." Alansplodge (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

December 17

Bengali surnames Muslim only

Is there a website that shows the surnames of Bengali language that are commonly used by Muslims in India and Bangladesh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This article may have what you want. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

History of the Freedom of Religion

A teaser for a TV show on PBS said, with the US Constitution, "For the first time in history, freedom of religion became an inalienable right". Is this true ? Sounds fishy to me. Surely some other nation must have had the freedom of religion first. StuRat (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, definitely - see Religion in ancient Rome for starters, and we have a (rather dreadful) article on Religious tolerance which lists many other such states. I think the "first time in history" bit is the "inalienable" (nonsense on stilts), which is equally inaccurate - the First Amendment is as overturnable as the Eighteenth was. Tevildo (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It is true that during the middle ages and the renaissance in Europe, there was an overwhelming consensus of opinion that having adherents of only one religion/denomination among its inhabitants or citizens made a state or nation strong, while having significant religious minorities was a weakening factor. Some who didn't have strong religious opinions themselves, nevertheless supported measures against religious minorities because they believed the "one religion = strong nation; more than one religion = weak nation" theory. This idea wasn't significantly undermined until the 18th century. AnonMoos (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

On that note, I found the argument striking that John Bunyan had with his judge when he was arrested for preaching without a licence (link). He basically argued for religious freedom for all, including Catholics, Muslims and atheists, and posited that "the State has no right whatever to interfere in the religious life of its citizens". The judge of course found the very notion absurd. Granted of course that Bunyan had a motive for his position, after all he was the one standing trial. - Lindert (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of religion says "Cyrus the Great established the Achaemenid Empire ca. 550 BC, and initiated a general policy of permitting religious freedom throughout the empire, documenting this on the Cyrus Cylinder", and apparently India has a very long history of religious tolerance. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Positive skull mutation caused the Renaissance and European dominance

Some time ago I read a theory that the Renaissance and the following centuries of European dominance in science, technology, industry, culture, politics etc. was caused by a positive mutation of the skull of Europeans, which resulted in a growth of the frontal lobes of the brain. Can somebody provide me with some details?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like total BS. How about the dominance of the Roman Empire, long before then ? Also, humans don't evolve significantly over a generation or two, it takes tens of thousands of years. StuRat (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

StuRat, have you ever heard the word "politeness"?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's impolite to give an honest answer. I didn't insult you, after all. Perhaps you object to my language, but I did at least abbreviate it to avoid the obscenity. StuRat (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Lüboslóv, but I think StuRat is right. The morphological differences between Europeans and other humans are too slight, and too ancient, for this theory to make sense. I don't know where you would look to find this theory expounded; but I don't think it would be in any reliable source. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

See scientific racism . Itsmejudith (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

These are linked directly or indirectly but the most relevant articles to the OPs specific query are probably Race and intelligence#Brain size, Neuroscience and intelligence, Anthropometry#Race and brain size. Our articles in this area have had continous problems but I don't think they are too bad at the current time. I would note that even most who hold to some connection between race, intelligence and brain size don't generally AFAIK suggest it's something that began during the Renaissance. Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be an extremely difficult thing to search for if someone didn't already know some details (who theorized it, where, when etc.). And that's because many historians speak of the "evolution" of the renaissance, and many biologists have mentioned a "renaissance" in evolution. And so Google or other search engines will simply throw up hoards of false positives. Do you remember anything more specific about the theory? Someguy1221 (talk) 09:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sturat! Welcome to the "short shrift to nonsense" club. alteripse (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is bullshit, which is a very rare thing to be able to say in biology based only on theory. But it can still be informative to say why. You'd need to have a mutation that would spread from 1 person to 100 million people in perhaps 1000 years, which is to say, a 10-fold increase in prevalence every 125 years, so a 58% increase (10^0.2) every 25 years. Without anybody noticing that Pod People were coming into their countries, their communities and their wives. (Actually that's the cheat - I'm saying someone has made an observation after all, come to think of it) Evolution just doesn't work that fast unless you're doing it in a cage. Now, you might postulate something like that if you suppose that it were some kind of virus engineered by our alien overlords to make us capable of building a decent sweatshop... even so, it still ignores history. History tells us of the Pantheon, of the Colossus of Rhodes, of the man-made land (chinampas) and grand architecture of Tenochtitlan, of the Chinese traditional medicine and ancient Roman medicine which was quite sophisticated and had much in common of our own --- the bottom line is, our ancestors had the same cleverness and the same feelings as we do. We do better only because they have built up technology, resources, domesticated animals, and political philosophies for us to use. Wnt (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• I should also add, of course, that as described (skull mutation) the idea is also disproved based simply on observations. Claims about skulls have been a cornerstone of scientific racism (and overlapping History of the race and intelligence controversy for later claims) since its inception, but it's all a lot of absurd correlation claims. Remember, the biggest difference of all in skull size is between men and women, and in recent years it's the men who have been on the losing side of university examinations. And Caucasian skulls haven't suddenly changed from what they used to be. Of course, the hypothesis could be adapted to something that doesn't show on a skeleton, which is why I went for the theoretical argument. Wnt (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no, again. If I knew that the Westerners are too nervous about the races, I would not definitely ask this. Thanks, people, but I didn't ask your opinion on the subject, just asked if anybody knew who the author/proponent was. You could simply go by and not express your "I-don't-like-it" opinions. Hopefully I've found the authors or something similar.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not that Westerners are these overemotional crazies who are "nervous" about hearing the Blunt Truth; it's that the idea is a complete and utter bullshit lie. If there's anything worse than a lie, it's a lie that's spread to prop up the egos of those who feel personally inadequate and therefore want to believe they're a member of a "master race", so they at least have something going for them. --NellieBly (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Why most of the men who survived the Titanic sinking were crew members?

While most of the men who died were passengers? My source is Encyclopedia Titanica. Keeeith (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Mmm. I'm not sure the statement is entirely correct. Whilst there was certainly a higher number of male crew members saved than male passengers (192 vs 146), there were more male crew on board than travelling as passengers (885 vs 805). The percentages of lives saved for each category are 22% for the crew and 19% for the passengers (numbers taken from our Titanic article). These figures would seem to be 'the same' in statistical terms - that is to say that around 80% of the men onboard died, regardless of their status as crew or passenger. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, each lifeboat had a crew member in charge. This must have increased the number of the crew that survived. Alansplodge (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There was tremendous variability in how the lifeboats were loaded, based mainly on the prejudices and caprice of the crewman in charge of loading that particular boat. In some, particularly the early boats, male passengers were excluded from the boats (on the basis of the adage, 'Women and children first'), even if that meant the boats left half-empty while male passengers who were present were left behind. (There was also some sentiment among the male passengers that to board a lifeboat was dishonorable). And boats leaving with women and children only were given male crew members to help them row. - Nunh-huh 12:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, crew members would usually be from a pool of working-age people, reasonably fit, and with good knowledge of the ship and the sea. Passengers, on the other hand, would likely include older and infirm men. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There were more men saved on Murdoch's side early on. Boats 5, 7, 1, and 3 were launched early on his side and contain many men (1 and 3 were majority male). Murdoch's later boats were much more skewed towards female passengers, but he still let men on if there weren't any women waiting. --NellieBly (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Who are some philosophers who prefer to write essays than or not books?

I know that some philosophers like writing essays more useful than writing a book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 12:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Start with Michel de Montaigne, who invented the modern essay form. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Many books are simply collections of essays. They are written initially for inclusion in academic journals and only later, when the author has enough essays saved up, are they published together in book form. --Viennese Waltz 12:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Possibly because writing a book is approximately 100 times the effort of writing an essay? (Not just the greater mass of material, but also the effort of coordinating it.) Looie496 (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

An essay can be a book, it can even be a lengthy monograph. Or a collection of essays. One does not preclude the other, and I would think this is especially true in philosophy, where the literary style is much less bound by conventions than in most other subjects in the humanities. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Guys, he's no asking for explanations, he's asking for some names. Bertrand Russell certainly wrote books, but many of his more popular works were very short essay-style pieces he wrote for magazines, newspapers, and so forth. These were then sometimes published in book form, as with Unpopular Essays. Matt Deres (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Louis Althusser, Jacque Lacan (not pure philosophy, but...) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

bihari camps in Bangladesh

Which places of Bangladesh have bihari camps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

We have an article Stranded Pakistanis... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Prevention of murder-suicide

This isn't related to the recent atrocity in Connecticut - it's been on my mind for a while.

How can domestic murder-suicides be prevented? By definition, murder–suicide is immune to punishment of the perpetrator as a deterrent, since he does not expect to survive the act.

To give a practical example: A man whose partner left him calls a crisis hotline. He admits strong fantasies and practical preparations for planning a murder–suicide of his ex or their kids. He sounds very serious, so the counsellor calls the police.

My question: How can / should / will the police react?

If the man has a gun (even a legal one), the police can probably legally seize it. They can apply to the courts for a Restraining order. However, both of these steps would appear to offer limited protection for the potential victim. Plenty of women have been murdered with restraining orders in their handbags. (As I said above, fear of post-crime arrest is no deterrent to the suicidal). They can help a potential victim improve her home security, or move to a battered women's' shelter. (The last of these would be a somewhat drastic step). So, my question is, can someone tell me what police practice would be? Would they go so far as to arrest and charge the man for "making threats to kill" (i.e. to the counsellor)? This would seem counter-intuitive - people will stop seeking help, if talking frankly to a counsellor involves a risk of arrest. Is there anyone here able to enlighten me on what the practical approach(es) from the police would likely be?

Also, can anyone point me to research which addresses the challenge of dealing with those at risk of committing a murder-suicide (but who have, as of yet, not followed through)? 58.111.175.170 (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A practical solution for those with a credible threat against their lives would be something akin to a witness relocation program, where their name is changed, they move to a distant city, and break all contacts with those in their former lives. This is rather drastic, though, and expensive, so could only be done in the most blatant cases. StuRat (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

To prevent mass shootings, gun control would do the trick. It's possible to attack people with other weapons, such as knives, but not nearly as deadly: Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing. StuRat (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Improve the way of access to mental health care. And that doesn't mean just making it affordable. It’s ironic that people who are irrational are expected under the law to get help on their own. There needs to be something in the law that compels a troubled person to be diagnosed by a psychiatrist. In the 1950s, we were institutionalizing people who weren’t mentally ill. You could institutionalize someone who was just unruly. We’ve gone from one extreme to the other. We need now a legal change to treat people more thoroughly, even if they don't agree to.

Remember, however, that even then you won't prevent all the cases.

BTW, deterrence also doesn't work very well for common murders, since criminals mostly believe they are way to smart to be caught. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

* Re police reaction, this is just one jurisdiction, obviously, but in the San Francisco Department of Public Health Manual you can read a police department procedure (page 37ff) on dealing with a person who expresses homicidal ideation to a therapist, who then reports it to the police. Essentially, the police have to go interview the suspect and make sure the potential victim is notified, then pass the case on to a police psychiatric unit. They might be able to remove firearms, since in this jurisdiction people who have expressed a homidical threat to a therapist aren’t allowed to possess firearms for six months. Reading further in the document, other options include committing the person for 72 hours as an immediate risk.

* Re your last question about research on dealing with those at risk: Patterns of intimate partner homicide suicide in later life: Strategies for prevention. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong question. Wnt (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This can be argued all sorts of ways. One can retort that if most people were armed, any murder suicide sprees would be pretty short. As for involuntary psychiatric commitment, nobody knew enough about the kid to do it, so why pretend? The real thing to note is that the father was "tax director and vice president of taxes for GE Energy Financial Services in the New York City area" [17] paying the mother $289,000 in alimony every year to 2023.[18] The father of James Holmes was Robert Holmes, a senior scientist at FICO.[19] Some people have been spamming "conspiracy" and "refutation" stuff about these people all over the web, but it misses the point: We cannot touch these people. Saying we'll disarm them, put them in psychiatric holding and so forth, is like the mice conspiring to bell the cat. They come from among the Gods themselves (to be sure, fallen from the high station); all we can do is make laws to lock each others' hands behind our backs so we're easier to knock down and shoot in the back of the head. Wnt (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC) The question was about domestic murder-suicide, and not about Newtown. Please pay attention. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Crap, I didn't even notice we'd moved on. And admittedly I've been annoyed by the political exploitation of this issue to put a lot of harmless people in jail. Wnt (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The ethnicity of the modren Turks and the Byzantines

Hi, I would look to know what is the origin of the Byzantine? From which land they have come to Turkey?
and which peoples are related to them?
About the modern Turkies, have they come from Centeral Asia?
And if so, what had happend to the Byzantines?
Exx8 (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It's complicated.

Firstly, there's a tendency for indigenous populations not to be completely displaced by even quite aggressive invaders. (Industrial-era colonialists have worked quite hard to change that, tragically.) So in each case, the partial answer is going to be 'the people there now are the descendants of the people who were there before'.

Secondly, everyone is 'originally' from Africa, so when we say a population was 'originally' somewhere else, we just mean they'd been there a long time.

Thirdly, in terms of the population movements that there were, which drove the cultural changes which characterise them:

1) The Byzantines were not really an ethnicity as such; they were Greeks who called themselves Romans. As such, they were largely the descendants of the Ancient Greeks, the Ancient Romans, the Phoenicians, and pagan tribes such as the Pechenegs who were assimilated into Byzantine culture. They were probably also the descendants of the Hittites, who had lived in Anatolia much earlier.

2) The Turks who invaded Turkey were the Osmanli Turks, who'd been gradually working their way westward. They were originally from roughly modern Turkmenistan; see Turkic people for more details.

3) Some Byzantine subjects were assimilated by the Turkish and Arab cultures which supplanted them; others remained as a number of distinct ethnic groups, sometimes collectively called Levantines. Still others decamped to the West. And some just continued roughly as before, but with new overlords. This has changed quite a lot recently: BBC article covers the effect of the current war in Syria; William Dalrymple's book From the Holy Mountain covers a wider range of situations around the eastern Mediterranean, from Greece, through Turkey and the Levant to Egypt.

AlexTiefling (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Exx8 -- The "Greeks" or Greek-language speakers of Byzantine Anatolia had an origin that was partly old Greek (e.g. the Ionians of the western coast) and partly an amalgam of peoples affected by cultural Hellenization after Alexander the Great. As for where they went, many who were disaffected from centralized Byzantine orthodoxy in the first place (i.e. were monophysites or Arians or neo-Manicheans) stayed in place and were assimilated to the newcomers. The common "Sufi bait-and-switch" tactics were used -- i.e. often the first waves of Islamic missionaries preached a positive message, and only demanded the adoption of a few simple practices and the renunciation of a few symbolic sins, while the whole panoply of strict legalisms governing all areas of life only crept in later. Those who were highly attached to Byzantine rule and/or Greek culture presumably tried to migrate to areas where the Turks hadn't yet reached. AnonMoos (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The Greeks had been living in the north western part of Anatolia (now Asian Turkey) since the 20th century BC. This area eventually fell under the Roman Empire and they established Constantinople as their eastern capital in 330 AD. However as most of the inhabitants were Greeks, they quickly adopted the Greek language. When the Roman Empire in western Europe failed in the 5th century, the eastern part carried on as the Byzantine Empire. The Turks arrived in the 11th century AD, and slowly conquered Anatolia, establishing the Sultanate of Rum. Constantinople was captured in 1453. A substantial number of Byzantines kept their identity as Anatolian Greeks and remained in Turkey until the 20th century. During World War I, they were subjected to deportations, forced marches and massacres, known as the Greek Genocide; the number of victims is thought to run into hundreds of thousands. In 1923 an estimated 1,500,000 of them moved out of Turkey and into modern Greece, as part of the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey following the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922). Alansplodge (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Question: How many percentage of the people identified as Turks are actually Islamized Greeks or Byzantine subjects who converted early on?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've read Genetic history of the Turkish people and I still don't know. Time for bed. Alansplodge (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

How would one even identify that? Once people assimilate, they assimilate meaning that, as a group, they lose their distinct identity that makes them a different group. How many great-great-great-great-great-great-great-&c. grandparents does a modern Turk need to have that were, at that time, Byzantine Greeks? I would suspect that most modern Turks have at least one ancestor who was a Byzantine Greek. But they all also have at least one ancestor who is from the Turks that migrated there in the 11-12th century. So what does that mean? You basically are what you think you are; in the sense that ethnicity is defined by how one relates to other people. If someone today considers themselves a Turk, insofar as they relate to others as if they were a Turk, does it matter that a millennium ago they had an an ancestor who related to others as a Byzantine Greek? --Jayron32 16:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There are the Cretan Turks and other Muslims removed from Greece in the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey in 1923, basically by from the fall of the Byzantine Empire and the creation of the Greek State and to the population exchange the term Turks and Greeks have been equated to who are Muslims and who are Christians in the region formerly occupied by the Ancient Greeks and the Byzantine afterward. Are the Turkish people as homogenous as you say? My question was if there a region in Turkey with a large concentration of people descended from Greek converts?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

They're certainly not homogeneous, but the ancestral connection to any particular Greek speaking resident of the Byzantine Empire isn't particularly relevant for modern Turkish-speaking resident of Modern Turkey. Greeks in Turkey indicates that there are less than 3000 Greek people in Turkey today. --Jayron32 06:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"According to a 2012 study on ethnic Turks of Turkey, Hodoğlugil revealed that there is a significant overlap between Turks and Middle Easterners and a relationship with Europeans and South and Central Asians when Kyrgyz samples are genotyped and analysed. It displays a genetic ancestry for the Turks of 45% Middle Eastern, 40% European and 15% Central Asian." Alansplodge (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but so what? --Jayron32 19:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is rather pointless in a way, but I was trying to answer The Emperor's question above (which is, I believe, the point of the Refdesk). It does show that not many modern Turks are descended from Turkic warriors from the Steppes of central Asia, just as not many English folk are purely descended from Angles or Saxons, no matter how much they might wish it were so. Alansplodge (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Birth in Vatican/Antarctica

Were there any birth ever registered in the Vatican City or in Antarctica? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KobiNew (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A dozen or more in Antarctica proper. Emilio Palma was the first, in 1978. Solveig Gunbjørg Jacobsen, born 1913 in South Georgia, also has a claim. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And First Child Born in Vatican City on June 17, 1929, just four months after the country became independent. The baby was the son of one of the Pope's servants and was named Pius (presumably after the then-reigning Pope. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

December 18

Admission question

"The students were selected from 6,103 early admission candidates, the largest restricted early application pool in Stanford's history." from this link. What I don't understand is the "restricted early application pool". What if there are 10,000 applications then what would happen? How are they going to reduce that number to 6,103? If they had to read through all 10,000 applications to reduce it to 6,103 applications then isn't it pretty much the same as what would eventually happen to any of the other application? Eventually only around less than 2,000 will get admitted.184.97.227.164 (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it means they got 6103 candidates who applied before the early admissions deadline. If next year they get 10,000 then that will be the new record. RudolfRed (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with RudolfRed, I don't understand why you think the pool needs to be a certain number. I can't see anything in that link, nor in these [20] [21] links which describe the process, easily found from a search, to suggests there's a limited number of applications they will even consider. The fact that the is a record suggests there's no limit. If you're wondering why it's "restrictive", the Stanford links seems to suggest it's because there are limitations on what else applicants can do if they apply for restrictive early application. A quick search finds Early action which confirms the meaning of "restrictive". Nil Einne (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

LOL, the word "restricted" is pretty confusing. If it means as what you're saying then "largest early application pool in Stanford's history" should have been a better way to say it.184.97.227.164 (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If Stanford has previously allowed non restrictive early applications and they had a larger pool at least once, then your statement would be incorrect but their statement remains correct. If they have never had a large pool, then both statements are correct, but it's arguably helpful to include the word "restrictive" to clarify that what Stanford has is a restrictive early application pool, not a non restrictive one. Nil Einne (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Your claim is if someone applied early then there will be some sort of limitation? Like what? I would think the application process is all the same either for early or regular. Maybe really small different that doesn't make any difference beside the fact that one is early and one is regular.184.97.227.164 (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand what you're saying now. The point is there are limitations on what you can do if you apply under a restrictive early application process such as used at Stanford. This is described in the links I've provided but basically applicants cannot apply under another early whatever process (other early applications restrictive or not, early decision and early notification) with another university if they apply under a restrictive one. In the Stanford case there are several exceptions, namely any foreign university and any public university in the US, as well as for scholarships or special programmes and also any non-binding rolling admission process. Again this is described in the links so I'm uncertain why this is still confusing to you, as it sounds like you have a decent level of English comprehension. I'm not sure whether the Stanford exceptions are common or not but either way it doesn't seem to matter here. Stanford could obviously have a non restrictive early application process and allow their early applications to apply under other early processes at universities without restriction from Stanford (other universities may still have restrictive early application processes preventing people from apply to both Stanford and them, but that's not Stanford's fault) but they don't at the current time. If they did ever have such a process and ever had a larger pool, then your suggested statement is inherently incorrect whereas Stanford's statement is not (presuming they are right and it is the largest pool when they've has a restrictive early action process). If they have never had a larger pool (whether or not they ever had a non restrictive early application process) then your suggested statement would be okay and would clarify they never had a larger early application pool ever but also does not mention they currently use restrictive early application process. There may be the odd person confused by the "restrictive" part, but I'm guessing it's primarily directed at those who are interested in US universities who would already understand that part. And I'll be blunt, I except they're even less likely to care about anyone who still doesn't understand after being directed to a link where the restrictions are mentioned. P.S. It seems clear that Stanford doesn't use a restrictive regular application process. I doubt anyone does since it seems a bit extreme to forbid anyone from applying to other universities at all whenever they apply to your one. Nil Einne (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I except they're even less likely ... - Do you mean "I expect" or "I accept"? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction and poor sourcing in Nitta clan article

It quotes: "Yoshishige supported Minamoto no Yoritomo (1147 – 1199) in the Battle of Ishibashiyama of 1180 against the Taira clan.[...]The Nitta clan rose to importance in the early 13th century; they controlled Kozuke Province, and had little influence in Kamakura, the capital of the Kamakura shogunate, because their ancestor, Minamoto no Yoshishige had not joined his fellow clansmen in the Genpei War a century earlier."

Will it be a better saying that they had little influence in Kamakura because they contributed little to the Genpei War or for other reasons? Also, how is "had little influence in Kamakura" defined? Are there any sources?--Inspector (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The gist of it seems to be that although Yoshishigi had supported his nephew Yoritomo in the war, he had not done so straight away and thereby incurred a grudge. Yoritomo and the Founding of the First Bakufu: The Orgins of Dual Government by Jeffrey P. Mass (p.75) says; "Yoshishige's initial refusal (1180/9/30) to respond to Yoritomo's overtures was replaced by an acceptance of his nephew's overlordship a couple of months later (12/22). The relationship remained an uneasy one". Coming closer to answering your question, The Clear Mirror: A Chronicle of the Japanese Court During the Kamakura Period (1185-1333) By George W. Perkins (p.253) says; "The nun's mistake may have arisen from the fact that the Ashikaga had historically enjoyed preferential treatment at Kamakura, whereas the Nitta, although locally strong, had been kept at arms length because their ancester, Yoshishige, had not responded to Yoritomo's original summons at the time of the Gempei war". Alansplodge (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just realised that if Yoshishigi didn't join Yoritomo until Decenber 1180, he couldn't have supported him at Ishibashiyama on 21 September. A description of the battle in Saitō Musashi-bō Benkei: Tales of the Wars of the Gempei, being the story of the lives and adventures of Iyo-no-Kami Minamoto Kurō Yoshitsune and Saitō Musashi-bō Benkei the warrior monk by James S. De Benneville, Published 1910 (p.29) says that despite attempting to raise all the clans of the Kantō Plain against the Taira, Yoritomo's army only numbered 300 men. So it seems likely that the grudge was because Yoshishige had left Yoritomo in the lurch at Ishibashiyama, although I can't find a source that says so directly. Alansplodge (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The statement about "Yoshishige supported Minamoto no Yoritomo (1147 – 1199) in the Battle of Ishibashiyama" seems to have been added by User:Prburley on 12 September. I have left a message on his (or her?) talk page - perhaps he can help solve the mystery. In the meantime, I may try to improve the Battle of Ishibashiyama page which is rather low on detail. Alansplodge (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Me again. A link to this question has been posted on the WikiProject Japan Talk Page by Prburley, so watch this space! Alansplodge (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Why did, do and will languages diverge?

In the past, languages were more similar to other languages than they do today. In the future, there will be more languages than there are today. Why? Will language codification stop the process? Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I question your premise. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I question your premise II. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You're questioning my questioning of the OP's premise, i.e. you agree with the OP's premise? Because that's what your indentation is suggesting. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was ambiguous. I was questioning the OP's premises. Indeed, it's worse than that. I believe he's wrong. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Me too. That's why I questioned his premise.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, I'm not sure I agree with "in the past, languages were more similar to other languages than they are today". In the past, most languages were solely spoken languages, used only locally, and thus contained many distinct dialects. So in border regions within one language family's linguosphere, the language spoken immediately on either side of the border would be almost indistinguishable, but the language spoken elsewhere in the two countries would still be very different. This is called a dialect continuum. Codification of languages and teaching people a written standard usually triggers a process called dialect levelling, whereby people's spoken language starts to move towards the language taught as the written standard. - filelakeshoe 10:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It's estimated that half of the world's 6,500 extant languages will die out in the next 90 years [22]. I wouldn't say languages were diversifying much at the moment. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If they had had television 2000 years ago, everyone might be speaking Latin now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Millions of people speak French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Italian, Catalan, and other Latin-derived languages. So arguably what was lost was not the dominance of Latin, but its consistency. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to mention one big Latin-derived language, which is English. I'm not sure if it is a direct derived from Latin but I know for a fact that it shares many similarities with Spanish and French, Italian and Spanish are very similar, Portuguese is also similar enough to Spanish. Perhaps English is an indirect Latin-derived language. In the end, they are all related. 184.97.227.164 (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not forget it. I didn't mention it because I was choosing direct descendants of (vulgar) Latin, and English most definitely is not; it just has a lot of Latin vocabulary. Please don't presume to tell me what I do and don't remember. This is a well-studied field, and your own vagueness is unhelpful. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

English is a "mutt". It has lots of Latin filtered through old French. It has lots of old German. It also has many words from other languages. "Pure" English is supposedly based on Frisian. If the Roman Empire had had television, we might all be speaking actual Latin. As it is, English has become a "universal" language instead. It's "half Latin", so I'm sure Julius Caesar would be proud, or at least half-proud. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

To be correct, English isn't based on Frisian, or descend from it. The languages are cousins with a close common ancestor. Depending on how one figures it, Old English, Old Frisian, Old Dutch and Old Saxon were likely all mutually intelligible dialects of West Germanic, though in their modern forms (English, Frisian, Dutch, and Low German, aren't really all that mutually intelligible anymore, and I don't know that any of them is any closer to their putative ancestor language than the others. --Jayron32 06:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't know if anyone saw this recent claim - really brings into light that the amount of West Germanic left in English is pretty minimal. - filelakeshoe 11:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It makes for a cute press release, but no linguist who studies Old English would take it seriously. The West Germanic - Ingvaeonic - Anglo-Frisian - Old English line of development doesn't provide the majority of entries listed in large modern English dictionaries, but it provides nearly all the basic grammar (inflectional morphology, pronouns, articles, demonstratives, etc.), and many of the most commonly-used vocabulary words. During the "Danelaw" and "Cnut's empire" periods (9th-11th centuries), Old English and Old Norse were not exactly mutually comprehensible, but they had a large number of structural similarities, and it was relatively easy for someone who spoke one of the languages to learn to understand much of the other language, which did lead to some significant Norse influence on the English language -- but not remotely enough to be able to call English a real Scandinavian or North Germanic language. The press release also omits some inconvenient facts, such as that modern Scandinavian languages have definite article suffixes and at least non-neuter vs. neuter noun gender contrasts. For something published in "Science Daily" it's highly non-scientific... AnonMoos (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Languages diverge because of people's limited ability to learn. The language that a person learns is never exactly the same in all details as the language that other people learn. Whether this will cause increasing or decreasing rates of divergence is not easy to predict. Looie496 (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I very much question that claim. Imprecise transmission is one mechanism for language evolution, but there are many others, and more important ones. Languages adapt to changing circumstances. 200 years ago there was no need for words or phrases like deoxyribonucleic acid or spread spectrum or laptop or laser or radar. 2000 years ago, in Europe, there was no need for gun or sextant or America or potato. 20000 years ago, no city or road or iron, or, probably, king. People coin new words and simplify existing linguistic structures to make language more convenient, both intentionally and unintentionally. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Language innovation also sometimes happens for reasons other than convenience. For example, an individual or a small group will adopt a novel pronunciation or grammatical form, perhaps just to be distinctive. That innovation then spreads to other members of their community. If their community is influential enough (in today's context, let's say they are young actors in Los Angeles; a thousand years ago, maybe young warriors in the service of a victorious duke), the innovation may spread more broadly. However, particularly in premodern times, such innovations had a limited spread. People in region A might adopt the innovation, but people in region B might say, "That's how people from region A talk; we don't talk like that." Over time, different regions might establish linguistic identities in this way, each with its own innovations, for reasons of convenience or for other reasons. Eventually, a people from region B might no longer be able to understand people from region A. Marco polo (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think an example of that involves Joss Whedon and "-age", e.g. "slayage" - according to the article, apparently many other examples. Meanwhile old words practically die out ... after all, how often do you actually hear "deportment"? I don't know, but I would think duplication and divergence should also play a role as important as in genetics: for example, "swept" in the floor sense is beginning to break away from "sweeped" in the sports sense. Whenever we get back a slight variant of a word it can come to mean something else - avant-garde versus vanguard. Wnt (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

See Historical linguistics and Evolutionary linguistics. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In an effort to address the OP's questions... Languages diverge because languages are in a constant state of change. When different communities speaking the same language are in constant communication with each other, the changes spread through all of them and remain intelligible. So while the Roman Empire was still in place, all its western provinces spoke and understood Latin (the eastern ones mostly spoke Greek). But sometimes communities get isolated from each other and no longer communicate regularly, and different changes take place in the language of the different communities. Keep that going long enough, and enough change will take place that the various communities won't be able to understand each other's language. Hence, after the Roman Empire fell in the west, the infrastructure maintaining lines of communication fell with it, communities in what are now Italy, France, Spain and Portugal no longer communicated with each other as regularly, and so their languages diverged.

We're in a very high communication period at the moment. The existence of the mass media and telecommunications means that communities that speak the same language can communicate with each other very easily, so languages are not diverging significantly. In fact, minority languages are dying out as people choose to communicate in languages with larger communities, so the number of languages is reducing, not increasing, just as it did when the Roman Empire was at its height. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone mentioned the Tower of Babel yet? – b_jonas 10:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you extrapolate the future trajectory of a language based on the history and its current trajectory?165.212.189.187 (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Where can I find an official reference grammar and dictionary of Russian, Polish, Czech, French, Spanish, German?

Where can I find an official reference grammar and dictionary for:

• Russian
• Polish
• Czech
• French
• Spanish
• German

from their respective language regulators? --Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In many cases, from their websites. For German, for example, I followed the links in the language regulators article you linked to, and went to the website of the Council for German Orthography. Their homepage [23] has a couple of links on the right to pdf files which may be of interest to you. --Viennese Waltz 10:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The Czech language institute website has online versions of the reference grammar and dictionary, both of which are available in print as well. - filelakeshoe 10:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The best Russian reference grammar written in English I know is Alan Timberlake's "A Reference Grammar of Russian". In Russian there is 2-volumed comprehensive «Русская грамматика» (1980) by the Institute of the Russian language but it can be too difficult for beginners. But these are not official as there is not any "official" grammar of Russian.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As for dictionaries the most influential were Ushakov's and Ozhegov's, the modern ones can be Efremova's and Kuznetsov's.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

For French, go with one published by Larousse.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

what are the duties of the majority shareholders toward the minority shareholders

when you go from 100% ownership to 98% ownership by selling 2%, does that mean that if the company gets a chance to rape the world for a few billion dollars in free and lawful money that beats anything it would produce long-term, you (the majority shareholder) instantly must take this opportunity due to your "fiduciary responsibility" to minority shareholders? Or, can you keep running an ethical company (or whatever kind you want, sheesh, you're the owner) same as before? Or, is it subject to any promises or prospectus: what if there IS no prospectus or promises, someone just likes how you're running the company and wants a stake? Short of fraud can you continue to dominate strategically according to whatever principals you want?

I'm not asking for legal advice, just curious. --91.120.48.242 (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Company law, and the position of minority shareholders, varies widely (wildly!) by jurisdiction. Which piece of turf are you curious about? Henry^Flower 13:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The only place that matters. Delaware company law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.120.48.242 (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

And why is Delaware the only place that matters? Anyway, a lawyer would have to look into the statutes of the company to decide what is legally binding. This decision would have to stand in front of a judge. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe about half of all US companies are registered in Delaware, owing to its favourable corporation laws. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

And I believe that about 0.5 percent of all companies are US companies. Where did it say this question was about American affairs? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh Jack... I bet the number's a bit higher... and yes Delaware is a major state of incorporation for a few reasons. Shadowjams (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• The main principle is that the company can't take actions that benefit the majority stakeholder at the expense of minority stakeholders. There is generally no rule that prevents actions that harm all stakeholders equally -- for example, giving money to charity. Looie496 (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  I think you want shareholder here, which is precisely defined, rather than the vague stakeholder, which can be extended to include anyone whose interests depend on what the company does. --Trovatore (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, this is very useful of you to point out. I think this principle answers my questions nicely. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a huge body of law related to minority shareholder rights. To answer a question like this I'd have to give you a Westlaw subscription for christmas, or at least hand you a treatise on Delaware Corporate law. However you're making one implicit leap that's interesting... the 100% owner obviously has carte blanche to pick management, but it's not necessary that they are in fact the management. So the majority shareholders typically can choose the management, although there are combinations of preferred stock and other voting schemes that can alter this (unlikely to be a problem though for a 98% shareholder). It's important to distinguish the fiduciary duty management has to shareholders from the duty that majority shareholders have towards minority shareholders. Those are distinct duties so be careful to not confuse them. Shadowjams (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Is Northern Canada militarily unprotected or not?

Thank you. Keeeith (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It is specifically protected by the Canadian Rangers, aka Arctic Rangers. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

And are they prepared to deter a foreign attack? Keeeith (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that the Canadian Arctic has no land borders except Alaska, I don't know how prepared they'd need to be. What is the cause of your preoccupation with unlikely military scenarios in North America? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd say they are prepared to handle any credible threat. Of course, the same would probably be true if they trust their defense to a teddy bear in a uniform who resides in Tuktut Nogait National Park. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Canada is a member of NATO, and an unprovoked attack on them would automatically bring NATO in, including of course the USA. Looie496 (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I would draw a parallel between Canada's northern defenses and Australia's. In both cases there are massive areas of inhospitable land where almost nobody lives. These days, with modern communications, even the small numbers of locals, plus airborne and satellite surveillance would quickly tell authorities if any significant "enemy" activity was occurring, and while not having huge military forces of their own, both have close to the latest in military technology, and very powerful friends. HiLo48 (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what does "militarily unprotected" means. Modern troops are very mobile, and Canada is surely able to deploy them at any place if needed. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

While this question does not exactly fall under the heading of requesting legal advice, I have serious reservations about the reference desk giving out information about the vulnerability of a Northern Canada to military attack. How would you feel about Keeeith asking about the ease of rape of certain "unprotected" women in whatever location? This is more serious in that we are talking about the vulnerability of a sovereign country to simple invasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.48.114.143 (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not. For one, sovereign countries are responsible for their own defense (or lack of same) while part of the very definition of civilized society is that such a society protects its members against attacks. For another, while countries may have recognized legal rights, people have natural human rights. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A look at the contributions of the above 178 editor to the ref desk makes it clear that their post here is plain trolling. I suggest WP:DENY. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yet we continue to feed Keeith. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to assume good faith in a not uninteresting question. Canada has in recent years sent military patrols to plant flags on disputed northern islands (Hans Island) and ordered new arctic-class icebreakers (CCGS John G. Diefenbaker) while Russia and Denmark have both sent expeditions to plant flags. Canada also still participates in NORAD although gone are the days of 24-hour nuclear-armed bomber patrols, the DEW line and nuclear-capable antiaircraft missiles (Project Nike). Rmhermen (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Northern Canada may need to step up naval patrols in the north, as the polar ice melts and the Northwest Passage becomes a more viable option for shipping, say for Europe to Asia trade. Unscrupulous shippers might otherwise feel free to dump their waste there as they pass. Presumably ports will also be developed in Northern Canada for use by such shippers, and towns will develop around them. So, at some point, a major military presence may be required there. StuRat (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If you check the distances carefully, you'll see that the north of Canada is still far away from any melted-North-Pool route. Add to this that the north of Canada is not connected to any railroad service, and has a very low population density. Why would any ship travel so far? OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said, to cut the travel time from Europe to Asia. The ice pack will be lessened each year. At first it will only be gone in summer, but eventually it should be gone practically year-round. StuRat (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

But these ships traveling between Europe and Asia are very, very far from the North of Canada. Any naval patrols on the North of Canada waiting for ships to dump their waste will be as bored in the future as they are today. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I suspect you're looking at a map so distorted that Greenland appears bigger than South America. Try a polar map, instead, to see the distances more clearly. StuRat (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, traveling through Canadian waters would still mean more than thousand miles extra. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's see those calculations. StuRat (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Stu. And you should use a globe, not a (necessarily distorted) map. See my comment below. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe nobody has mentioned the oil. Won't someone think about the oil? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No the Rangers are not there to deter an invasion. They provide "surveillance or sovereignty patrols". In other words they are a cheap way for the government of Canada "plant the flag". On the other hand if you are lost out on the tundra then they are the people you want looking for you. The only ports likely to be built in the near future are the Nanisivik Naval Facility and the one at the end of the railway line from the Baffinland Iron Mine. There may still be a slim chance of the Bathurst Inlet port being built but I can't see why ships passing through Canadian Internal Waters would require a port at all. They have no reason to stop in the Arctic as the passengers, and in the future, goods, materials are all bound for the east/west coast of North America. The cruise ships do stop but that is to visit Inuit communities and not for fuel, etc. The only ships to stop in the Canadian Arctic are the cruise lines and the summer resupply ships from Montreal (Northwest Passage#2008 sealift) or Hay River (Northern Transportation Company). Cost and distance are a couple of reasons that the NWP is attractive to shipping. Oil is just one of the things we have that you want. I think most of that is further west anyway. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Why stop at ports ? To resupply, refuel, perhaps to offload goods to a warehouse to be picked up by another ship, to dump off fired crew and take on new crew, for "shore leave", to make repairs, etc. Also, if Canada gets it's way, those are Canadian waters, so they'd need to stop for a customs inspection and/or to pay taxes. StuRat (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I know why ships stop at ports but you originally said that ports would be developed. I'm saying there is no need to do that. Earlier it slipped my mind that we also have the Canadian Coast Guard through here as well. So we have coast guard, cruise ships and community resupply ships. So to your points. Resupply and crew change can already be done with what we have in place. Every year we, Cambridge Bay Airport, handle a coast guard resupply and crew change. This year there was over 100 helicopter movements in one day for crew and supplies but it happens every year. The same happens for the cruise ships but usually in lower numbers and less of a resupply. Although we did see over 100 passengers come in and leave on the same Boeing 737 one summer. One thing to remember is that moving people and supplies in the middle of the NWP at a port will require aircraft. Air flight up here, even in the summer, can involve 2-3 days delays. A nuisance when I can't go to the store and buy fresh fruit or milk but a lot worse for a cargo ship on a deadline. Refuelling is not done currently by any ship passing through the Arctic and I see no reason why ships that cross the Pacific would need to do that in the Arctic Ocean. Not only that but you would need to resupply the port with fuel using other ships. Repairs require major facilities that may sit idle for month at a time. By the way how do ships in the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific get repaired? Dropping off containers for other ships to pick up isn't necessary. As for shore leave, well we already have enough social problems caused by transient population and that would make things worse. Plus we don't have the entertainment facilities that they would be looking for, bars, theatres, etc. It would also take years to either start a new site or expand a current one. You can't just say we are going to do that here. There is consultations to be held with various Inuit groups. Environmental and land use studies will be required. You can spend millions before you even begin construction. And that's what it all comes down to, money. Who is going to spend billions to build this port(s)? Especially as at the current time it is only usable for 3-4 months of the year. No need to when all of this can be done either using the current infrastructure or before and after entering the NWP. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You're stuck in the mode of thinking that however things are now, they will always be the same. As years pass, and the NWP becomes open year round, that route will become steadily more practical. As for who would pay for the ports, well, who pays for other ports ? Usually some combo of private industry and government, looking to get in on a cash cow. There would be minimal need for flights in and out of the ports, as resupply would now occur by the sea, although people might want to fly in and out to save time. The "social problems" from having sailors take shore leave at a port might be similar to those from opening a casino, but many places still do that, to cash in. Ships in the middle of the Pacific with damage must either limp to shore or be towed in, at great expense. The reason to refuel en route is so you can carry less fuel, and therefore more cargo. Helicopter resupply is too expensive on the large-scale. StuRat (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I would just point out that the shortest sea route between Europe and East Asia is the Northeast Passage along the Arctic coast of Siberia. The Northwest Passage through Canada doesn't make sense as a route from Europe (unless the Northeast Passage is physically or politically impassable). However, the Northwest Passage would serve as a shortcut from the east coast of North America to East Asia, since that sea route would be shorter than one through the Panama Canal. Also, the main reason for a military presence to protect shipping would be if there is a danger of pirate or enemy attack on that shipping. However, it's really hard to imagine a scenario where either could happen. Arctic populations are fairly well policed by their respective nations, so piracy is not a realistic issue. As for enemy attacks, who would be the enemy? If a European entity were somehow at war with Canada, the United States, or one of their Asian trade partners (in itself an implausible scenario), it would be much easier to attack that shipping in Atlantic waters rather than enter Canadian enemy territory before launching attack. If the enemy were Asian, likewise, Pacific waters would be a much less risky point of attack. That leaves just Russia. An attack by Russia on shipping between the Canada or the US and East Asia would antagonize at least one nation-state on each continent. Russia is not economically or militarily in a position to wage war simultaneously against both a North American and an East Asian adversary. Marco polo (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, if there's no ice at all, the shortest path from Europe to Asia may be across the North Pole. StuRat (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Marco polo says "the shortest sea route between Europe and East Asia is the Northeast Passage along the Arctic coast of Siberia." That's not what it looks like on my globe, at least not from any point on the Atlantic coast of Europe -- it looks like it's a little shorter to go by the Northwest passage. Remember that each of the Atlantic and North America is not all that wide, whereas Eurasia is extremely wide. Note also that a direct line from say Northern Ireland to the Pacific entrance from the Arctic Ocean goes just a little on the Canadian side of the North Pole. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Just wandering back to the original question for a moment, northern Canada is about as militarily protected or unprotected as Shetland is. As others have explained, remote places don't need military garrisons stationed around or in them, just as you don't see battalions of troops stationed in major cities to protect them. According to Wikipedia, Canada has the sixth largest airforce in the Americas, most notably including over a hundred McDonnell Douglas CF-18 Hornet, a modern and very capable multirole supersonic jet fighter. These are adequate for providing air superiority over northern Canada if it were disputed, as well as mounting strikes on enemy shipping off the northern coast, or on forces that might have landed on it.

Canada also has around two hundred German-built modern main battle tanks (although they might not be very useful in the extreme north, nor very easy to get there in large numbers). More usefully for a putative military engagement in the far north, it has a moderately sizeable (some tens of thousands), well-trained and battle-hardened infantry force equipped with modern weapons, as well as artillery including dozens of British-built 155mm M777 howitzers and dozens of French-built 105mm GIAT LG1 howitzers. The infantry and the artillery are easily transportable by Canada's ample complement of Chinook helicopters (if the invaders have occupied or neutralised all the local airstrips) and/or fixed-wing transport aircraft (if they haven't).

All of this is more than adequate to protect Canada's northern frontier, plus as has already been said, the NATO membership is rather important. They are of course increasing their investment in patrol ships for that frontier as it becomes more interesting. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Enough. Too much, actually. μηδείς (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Ted Bundy

Hi, I saw that the Ted Bundy article is a good article, I want to know if we should add what he talked about with his mother in their last phone call in which she told him that she loved him whatever he was? Keeeith (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss that at Talk:Ted Bundy. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to raise this question, if you raise it at all, at Talk:Ted Bundy, and back your suggestion up with reliable sources. I am at a loss, however, to understand the continuing fascination with such a revolting specimen of humanity. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't admire him, I just work on good articles. And only God can judge him, not the men on Earth. Only God is the one to judge. If he truly repented, he's up there now. Whether you like it or not. With all the due respect for your feelings toward him of course. You are free to feel whatever you want about him, especially since he's a serial killer. Keeeith (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

lol Surtsicna (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't suggest you admire him. (That would be a hell of an accusation; no such thing is implied or intended.) I'm just baffled by the fascination. But with respect, it's totally for the courts, established by law and maintained by democratic processes, to judge. If society never judged anyone, we would not have the rule of law. God (if there is a God, which I hope but cannot know) can judge our souls (if we have souls); but the state can and should judge our actions in the here and now. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Technically, it's not Ted Bundy himself which the legal system judged, it's the acts he committed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Err, that's a meaningless technicality. He was found guilty. His acts, like a corporation, have 'no body to imprison and no soul to condemn'. People are tried, for their acts. The acts are not tried. (OK, so occasionally things are tried, but that's differently. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he was found guilty of committing these acts. That judges his deeds, not his soul. Only God (if any) can do that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm beginning to suspect that you people might be American. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Where'd you get that idea? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

December 19

legacy preference

I wonder if Harvard university has legacy preference in their application process? And also I have looked up Harvard's early action, they only talk about single choice early action. So is that the same thing as restrictive early action? Looks like the same thing to me. Is there any other option in Harvard's early action? Like applying early action at Harvard and also able to apply elsewhere.184.97.227.164 (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yikes! "Harvard’s acceptance rate for legacies has hovered around 30 percent—more than four times the regular admission rate—in recent admissions cycles". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if the Harvard Crimson is a reliable source. Source from something big like NBC as an example should be reliable. If this is true then the lucky for whoever has a parent that attended Harvard in the past. However this is simply an unfair disadvantage for those whose parents are not very high statue in the society and they have to overcome much more to have the same success in term of education as those that from the top of the ladder already. The reason for legacy preference itself is stupid, just to get more donation from alumni. I'm surprised that an elite school like Harvard has such a bad moral, willing to trade legacy preference for money.184.97.227.164 (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

How about the Wall Street Journal, that bastion of socialism? 40% in 2003! Compared to the overall 11%. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

People calling it an "unfair disadvantage" should remember that Harvard is a private institution. OsmanRF34 (talk) 09:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Some would consider it suspicious that certain of those who are most vocal against affirmative action seem curiously unbothered by legacy preferences... AnonMoos (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Being against affirmative action is equally not reprehensible as such if you are a private institution, even if you have a strong legacy program. My way of thinking about it is that the state shouldn't be creating privileges, since it's the government of all, but it's OK for private enterprises to use their privileges as they please. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right it sounds like single choice early action is simply another (perhaps less confusing) name for restrictive early action. In fact they even have pretty much the same exceptions [24] i.e. public universities, foreign ones (of course the problem with foreign ones is such concepts as early action don't always translate well, probably one reason why no one tries to limit them). It doesn't specifically mention stuff like rolling admissions and special programmes, but since the restriction is under any of the three listed 'early' possibilities, I don't see why these would be a problem. As per the source, it sounds like you can apply for anything after receiving Harvard's decision/ So any institute which has stuff with a deadline after the ~December 15th of receiving notification is an option, which evidentally includes a number of Early Decision II programmes. Note that as discussed in the previous topic and also mentioned in the Harvard site and in the early decision II ref and also I guess in our article early decision is distinct from early action. Early decision means the application is binding so if admitted you have no choice baring special circumstances (I think if the financial support offered wasn't enough is usually one of them when you aren't offered full financial support). I believe this also means early decision is by definition single choice or restrictive [25]. Whereas with early application you (generally) find out faster if you may be admitted, but you still have until the normal deadline to make up your mind which university, if any, you want to enroll at. (In case it wasn't clear from the previous discussion and the source, in both the Harvard and Stanford case you are still free to apply under regular decision at other universities even if accepted at Harvard/Standford. You just find out sooner if you are accepted and can't take advantage of any other 'early' processes.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions about Israel from User:Donmust90

yeshivas in Israel reform/progressive and masorti/conservative

How many yeshivas that serve the reform/progressive jews and conservative/masorti jews in Israel? -- 04:23, 19 December 2012‎ Donmust90

I found one, ([26]) by spending a few minutes using Google. --Dweller (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Update. Actually, that doesn't count, as it's aimed at secular Jews, not non-Orthodox. There is a big difference. The answer to your question is probably that given by AnonMoos, below. --Dweller (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

chief rabbi sephardi in Israel

How many places in Israel that have sephardi chief rabbis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

See Chief_Rabbinate_of_Israel#Chief_Rabbinate_Council --Dweller (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

reform rabbis and conservative rabbis in Israel

How many places in Israel that have rabbis of progressive and masorti judaism, regardless they are women or men? -- 04:23, 19 December 2012‎ Donmust90

Lots. If you tell us why you want to know, it might help us answer such a broad question. Also, it might help us communicate if you tell us what is your first language. --Dweller (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that you never seem to understand that non-Orthodox forms of Judaism only have a somewhat niche presence in Israel (as far as formally-established organizations go), no matter how many times you are told this? AnonMoos (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The use of the term Orthodox is by no means consistent or easily defined. Depending whether you are in Israel or not, Jew or not, you'll be using the term differently. However, Orthodox Judaism claims that only 25 % of Israeli Jews were Orthodox, as of 2001. Many among the rest are secular Jews. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, only rabbis recognized as being Orthodox by other Orthodox can join the official rabbinate, and if you're of Jewish ethnic/historical origin in Israel, you can be affected by provisions of inheritance, marriage, divorce etc. laws as interpreted by Orthodox rabbis, no matter how much of an atheist you are -- and relatively few synagogues or other religious institutions have declared themselves non-Orthodox. To put it in Ottoman terms, the Israeli government only recognizes one Jewish "millet", the Orthodox Jewish "millet"... AnonMoos (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

So, you are pressed into the orthodox Judaism category, but that wouldn't mean that someone in Israel, even if recognized as orthodox, cannot hold progressive views and be female, would it?. Would Dweller's answer (Lots), be right under some perspective? OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your first sentence. By definition, someone who is Orthodox is not progressive. By definition, people who are Orthodox includes (roughly 50%) women. --Dweller (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Are there any female orthodox rabbis in Israel? OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah. You missed out the word "rabbis", you said "someone". Now that makes sense. There are Orthodox women who have been given the title of "rabbanit" (our redirect to Rebbetzin is unhelpful) or similar. As with the cases below, they're mostly not recognised by the rabbinate, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. --Dweller (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Reconsider this: Rabbanit is the Hebrew word for Rebbetzin (Yiddish), an honorific title for a respected wife of a rabbi. That page is entirely helpful. In no way is the term conferred for ordination, for which women are ineligible as many key religious obligations (mitzvoth, commandments) are for men only. There is no Orthodox ordination of women. In the Reform/Progressive movement, the Hebrew word for female rabbi is rabbah. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion here. There are plenty of rabbis in Israel who are rabbis, regardless of recognition by the official rabbinate. --Dweller (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me attempt to straighten this out:

• The OP failed to capitalize Progressive [Judaism], the name for an umbrella movement in Israel for the streams elsewhere called Reform, Liberal, and Reconstructionist. See World Union for Progressive Judaism. The term "Masorati" (Hebrew: traditional) is sometimes used in Israel as equivalent to the foreign "Conservative" movement. "Progressive...Masorati" are the OP's way of referring to "Reform...Conservative" in Israel.
• The term "Orthodox Judaism" - while it covers many subsets - is generally that of adherents who practice the commandments (in Hebrew, mitzvoth) of the faith, largely as expressed in laws of Halakha, set down and administered by rabbinic figures and bodies. Familiar practices include Sabbath observance, the laws of Kashruth (eating kosher), men and married women covering their heads in public, and much, much more.
• The only form of Judaism recognized in the State of Israel is halakhic (according to Halakha), i.e. Orthodox by its many names and forms. Synagogue membership is not obligatory, but only an Orthodox rabbi can officiate at weddings, burials, and conversions. Rabbis and cantors ordained by non-Orthodox streams of Judaism (outside of Israel) may lead congregations but otherwise have no legal status.

Hope that helps. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, so what happens to officially orthodox Rabbis that hold progressive positions? Is the Progressive Judaism movement a partof Orthodox Judaism in the same way that Theology of Liberation is a movement within the Catholic Church (but not a rupture)?OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you've made the fatal flaw of confusing "Progressive" as a term to apply to a particular tradition within Judaism and "progressive politics". The two have nothing to do with each other. Liberation theology represents a certain worldview that favors social justice in many of the same ways that progressive politics does, but it isn't inconsistent with the core tenets and doctrine of the (religiously conservative) Catholic mainline. Likewise, a Jewish person could be "politically" progressive and work for social justice in the same ways, but still be "orthodox" in his/her practice of Judaism. --Jayron32 18:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

See: Rabbi Haim Amsalem. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Nazi Germany anti-Jew legislation

Do we have, or can anyone point me in the direction of, a timeline for the introduction of anti-Jew legislation in Nazi Germany? Timeline is important here. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

For a very incomplete list of the 2,000 German laws see [here]. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A concise timeline posted by the Anti-Defamation League. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A Forest of Kings The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya

I've had the book A Forest of Kings by Linda Schele and David Freidel for a while now, but I've never gotten around to finishing it. I'd like to read as much as I can before it's too late... However, the book is from 1990 — are there any whopping mistakes or glaring omissions I should be aware of? TresÁrboles (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Same deal with Breaking the Maya Code by Michael D. Coe. The book is twenty years old this year. TresÁrboles (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"Before it's too late"? I think you'll have a little more time than you seem to believe. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If the world is ending, let's get the date right!

I guess this is an inexact science; most sources I've seen has the Mayan calendar rolling over on December 21, 2012. But as a note in our article says, " Various sources place this on other dates, notably on December 23."

In fact, this is from A Forest of Kings:

December 23, 2012, will be 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ahau 3 Kankin, the day when the 13 baktuns will end and the Long Count cycles return to the symmetry of the beginning.

I'm surprised I have not heard more about this. Have the experts settled on the 21st after all? TresÁrboles (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"Experts?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, experts in ancient Mayan civilization. Anyway I found in our article the kind of info I was looking for. So the answer as to why the 23rd date is being ignored in the media is probably because of the solstice. "This date is also the overwhelming preference of those who believe in 2012 eschatology, arguably, Van Stone suggests, because it falls on a solstice, and is thus astrologically significant" "the date's falling on a Solstice would be ever so much neater if one believes Zodiacal horoscopy" (See http://www.famsi.org/research/vanstone/2012/comments.html) TresÁrboles (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, experts might come to a consensus on when the Mayan calendar cycle ends, although leap years might be tricky. Real experts, however, would never argue that the end of the Mayan calendar is the end of the world any more than the end of our calendar each year means that. StuRat (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought the world had already ended... several times? Blueboar (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I feel fine. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that the end of a baktun is neither the end of the Long Count, nor the end of a 'calendar cycle' as such. There are four more uncommon significant figures on the Long Count after the baktun, and with distance dates factored in there's anything up to 24 significant figures. There are more baktuns still to go (2012 represents the change to the 14th baktun out of 20) and there are a number of examples of Mayans referencing dates past the 14th baktun. The Long Count calendar itself ends something in the order of several quadrillion years in the future, well after the solar system is expected to be destroyed by our dying sun. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 03:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Mystery Tank

I found this image at the LAC:File:CD Howe first tank.png. I had it in the Ram tank article and it was removed as being a Valentine tank. Can anyone confirm which type it is so I can categorize it correctly?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It does indeed seem to be a Valentine; This image (on the header) seems to match every detail including the wing mirror. Alansplodge (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's another one - same similarity. Alansplodge (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

According to this page, "The Valentine, while not used by the Canadian Armoured Corps overseas, holds the distinction of being the first tank manufactured in Canada, prior to the Ram. Of 1420, all except 30 were sent to Russia..." Everything that you ever wanted to know about Canadian Valantines is here, except the date that the first one (which I believe is shown in your photo) was completed. According to that article, the official designation of it was Tank, Infantry Mark III*** (Valentine Mark VI). Alansplodge (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

D'oh! I've just seen that the date is on your photo caption. C. D. Howe was the Minister of Munitions. Alansplodge (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help. Can we safely call it a Valentine Mark VI or should it be labelled Tank, Infantry Mark III*** ?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure Valentine Mark VI is more intelligible. Alansplodge (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

December 20

Is my understanding of the Transcendental Deduction correct?

I don't want to misinterpret this important philosophy of Kant so I need to consult it here whether my interpretations are in accordance to what is generally accepted.

Transcendental deduction implies that it is not experiences that gives us the right to put the concept to the object. Instead there are categories which are innate in us before we experience things and things and the role of cognition and sense is to verify whether these categories applies to objects.

Please say whether my understanding is correct, if not please supply what is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're very close. A couple things: Be careful when you say that the categories are "before" experience. Although they are a priori to experience, no cognition is possible without the occurrence of experience. A priori here does not have a temporal or causal meaning. Rather it refers to whence the content arises. In this case, from the human faculties themselves. This point is right at the beginning of the second edition Introduction: "As far as time is concerned, then no cognition in us precedes experience, and with experience every cognition begins. But although all our cognition commences with experience, yet it does not on that account all arise from experience." So really, "a priori" and "a posteriori" are sort of misnomers for Kant's critical work.

That "the role of cognition and sense is to verify whether these categories applies to objects", that just seems wrong to me. Kant is clear: All objects are thought through categories (§27 B165). So it does not seem that cognition and sense would verify that they apply. But I can think of a few things that you might be trying to get at:

There is the distinction between merely thinking an object, and cognizing an object. The cognition is thinking of the object along with a sensible representation. So in the case of cognition, the categories will never be applied to anything but possible objects of experience, because sensible representation is always representation of such objects. But one may merely think of an object with certain properties and apply the categories and thereby make judgements and reach various conclusions about this object, and the logic/reasoning may be fine, and yet be completely wrong in conclusion, because the object may not be an a object of possible experience, but just a fiction of reason. For example, this is why Kant thinks the ontological argument fails, because it doesn't limit itself merely to objects of possible experience. So, cognition's role is not to verify that the categories apply to the object, but it is cognition that naturally limits its objects to those of possible experience, which are the proper domain of the categories.

How the categories apply, may be called laws of appearances. However, because categories only determine the formal aspects of appearances, the categories cannot determine the laws of appearances with regards to every detail. In order for the details to be filled in, experience must supply them. So experience still has a role in describing particular laws of nature. So take some law, like: masses attract. The categories determine that objects are related by cause and effects which are necessary. But they say nothing about the experiential details of the cause and effect. So the categories determine that the effect (in this case, attraction) is caused necessarily, but experience determines that the effect is actually an attraction and not some other effect, and that the mass is part of the causal story, as opposed to something else.

And the last thing that may help you: Reason, as mentioned, can run away with application of the categories to objects that cannot be of possible experience. However, reason itself can reveal that it is capable of doing this, and can even identify to some extent in which cases this may happen (this, in part, is what the whole Critique of Pure Reason does). So, in a way, reason (not cognition and sense) can verify whether categories apply to objects in certain cases. But this is not part of the transcendental deduction, but rather it's in the Transcendental dialectic.

Also, I wish to say, there are many interpretations of Kant. I have many failings in understanding this one interpretation, let alone other interpretations too. The sort of story given here is closer to what is given in Bird's The Revolutionary Kant and Allison's Transcendental Idealism, Revised Edition than to others'. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

France secession

Which parts of France wants to secede from the nation?--Donmust90 (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Donmust90

I don't know about majorities, but there are movements and parties of varying size and significance within certain regions that seek more autonomy or secession even. Our Category:Secession in France lists a few;: wthin mainland France, for example, the Bloc Català, the Breton Revolutionary Army, or Abertzaleen Batasuna, but also Corsica Libera and, outside Europe, the Martinican Independence Movement or the Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Mais, où est le front du peuple de Judée? μηδείς (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There is also a separatist/autonomist movement in Occitania. However, in Metropolitan France separatism only has significant support in Corsica and Basque Country. --Soman (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a very small seperatist movement in Savoy; see the Savoyan League; the slightly larger and more mainstream Savoy Region Movement supports local autonomy but not independence. Previous movements calling for unification with Italy (which is sort of secession, I suppose) have more or less vanished since WWII. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Renaud, in a humorous song was "l'autonomiste du 14e arrondissement". His lyrics listed the various separatist movements: "Puisque les Basques et les Bretons, Les Alsaciens les Occitants, Les Corses, les Chtimis, les Wallons. Y veulent tous être indépendants". Itsmejudith (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "Ils veulent"? -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes in proper French. I got the text off the Internet as I only half remembered it. The "Y" indicates a pronunciation regarded as lazy, omitting the "l" from "ils". It's a common pronunciation anyway, so the deviant spelling may not be strictly necessary but indicates the colloquial nature of the lyrics. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

What is meant by "Metropolitan France"? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The "hexagon" and Corsica, as opposed to DOM-TOM, I would assume... AnonMoos (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Now, you know we have an article for that, don't you? Dalliance (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, should have searched. Interesting that metropolitan is contrasted with colonial in France as opposed to suburban in the US. Wonder if there's an article that deals with the 50 states and DC as opposed to the American territories. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There's U.S. state and List of U.S. states. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, those are about the states as individual entities, whereas I take it that Medeis was referring to the portion of the United States comprising the 50 states plus DC, but not Puerto Rico and Guam and such. I'm not sure that's exactly parallel; the overseas French departments, according to our article, are represented in Parliament, whereas Puerto Rico and Guam are not represented in Congress. So it might be more like continental United States. --Trovatore (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The answer to Medeis is yes. The article United States starts out with "The United States of America (commonly called the United States, the U.S., the USA, America, and the States) is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district." The term United States sometimes means that and sometimes is used more inclusively to include the territories. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Then what article deals with the analog of les EE UU entiere? As for overseas departments, ours are AK and HI, with the rest being territories, as far as the analogy holds. μηδείς (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

amphigory

The word "amphigory" occcurs in a short story by Robert Heinlein. It's also the title of a book by Edward Gorey. What does it mean? I asked this question in a briefer form on Dec. 16 or 17. It was apparently removed by someone. Why? 64.206.70.114 (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Your question wasn't removed. It's still visible on this page, if you scroll up. StuRat answered it and provided a link. For another link, wikt:amphigory defines it as "nonsense verse; a rigmarole, with apparent meaning, which on further attention proves to be meaningless". ---Sluzzelin talk 02:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

And given the nature of his work, I'm sure Edward Gorey was playing with its similarity to his name. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 02:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact he spelled it "Amphigorey". ---Sluzzelin talk 02:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Bob and Ray might be the only comedians ever to use that word in a routine.[27] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Delayed snail mail

Is there a service where I can send a snail mail to my future self? As in, I write the letter, send it out, and it get sent back in 5 years. I've seen this trope used a few times in fiction and was wondering whether it actually works in real life. Dncsky (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

In the fiction I've read/watched with this trope, it's not actually a postal service but a private courier company who delivers the letter. Basically, a contract is agreed upon between the sender and the courier to hold the letter until X date, whereupon it is to be delivered to Y location at Z time. Of course, that requires hiring a courier service that will still be in business at X date. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 07:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Perfect answer. Thanks. This happens literally every time Apple releases a new phone so I don't know how I could've missed it.Dncsky (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You could also make such arrangements with a storage company, with the agreement that they will drop the item in the mail once the rental period ends. StuRat (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

True. Thanks.Dncsky (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You would have to trust that the company is still in business, but there are indeed companies set up especially to do this sort of thing. See http://www.dyingmessage.com for one useful application of the idea.

Resolved

You could always try the Jersey resistance movement. Alansplodge (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Political victory and stocks

After Park Geun-hye's victory today stocks related to her family jumped by the maximum daily limit of 15%[28]. Does this happen in other countries as well or is it just an Asian thing? Dncsky (talk) 08:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

UK maps

I'm trying to find a detailed map of the UK with county borders clearly marked, so far all I can see are blank maps with just the counties, or otherwise detailed and crowded maps that somehow neglect to show this particular detail. anyone know of one I can use?

86.15.83.223 (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Google Earth shows county borders when zoomed in close enough. (Make sure "2nd Level Admin Regions" is checked under "Borders".)    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 16:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

First we should ask what you mean by counties. The UK has a number of different kinds of administrative divisions, not all of which are counties, such that most UK residents no longer live in an administrative county. Instead, where they live, the highest administrative division below the national or country level (Northern Ireland, Scotland, or Wales; England is not an administrative division) is a unitary authority or metropolitan borough. If you are looking for 2nd-level administrative regions, whether or not those regions are counties, Google Earth might satisfy you. Also see Administrative geography of the United Kingdom. There are still administrative counties; they just don't cover the whole country. Meanwhile, there are ceremonial counties, historic counties, and registration counties. See Counties of the United Kingdom. Marco polo (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's one for the current ceremonial counties of England complete with county towns. Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I was hoping for something with both ceremonial counties and unitary authorities shown, I'll give google earth a look, I have been thinking of installing it again, though I'm not sure about how I would go about importing images from that to edit on my computer... 85.210.119.218 (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The thing about ceremonial counties and unitary authorities is that they overlap. Or more accurately, unitary authorities are typically subunits of ceremonial counties. They usually share ceremonial counties with administrative counties, though there are other arrangements. Essentially they are two separate layers. A map that shows two layers is not a simple map. Marco polo (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• I always thought the problem with maps of the UK were that no one knows how long the coastline of Great Britain is. μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that problem apply to all coastlines? I wonder why they've made a hullabaloo about GB. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The UK's coastline has a relatively high fractal dimension (this is due to glaciation, I think - places closer to the equator tend to have much smoother coastlines), and Mandelbrot's famous paper says "the west coast of Britain was selected [by Richardson] because it looks like one of the most irregular in the world". 130.88.99.231 (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If you choose Google Earth, you can copy the images to your computer by clicking "Edit" then "Copy image".    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 05:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni, Iranian gay teens

They were convicted of rape though most say that they were hanged for consensual homosexual sex. How can it be known whether they were rapists or gay? Will it ever be known? Keeeith (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I guess it might depend on the legal system. "Consensual sex" with an underage person in the UK is statutory rape so a single act can both be consensual and rape simultaenously. If the legal system does not recognize the right of a 13-year-old to consent to homosexual sex, in the same way that the UK system does not recognize an under-age person's right to consent, then that legal system will call it rape. 217.42.12.125 (talk) — PhilHibbs | talk 14:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

My understanding from reports and discussions I've read is the claims which were published before the controversy began are there was a fair degree of coercion and force involved, it clearly wasn't just a case of age the so called 'rape rape'. To be clear I'm not saying these claims are definitely correctly, simply that the primary controversy is over whether they are, not whether it was rape because of the age of the victim and the executed. I would note from the information available it's entirely unclear whether calling them gay teens is even accurate. Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Quote about a famous scientist

Who said, and about whom, "He was so intelligent he could barely get himself dressed", or words to that effect? Perhaps "He was the sort of person who was...". It was about a famous scientist of the early-to-mid-20th-century, could have been Einstein but I don't think it was. — PhilHibbs | talk 14:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC) (originally posted without loggin in, oops)

Well, I've heard it said about Einstein that he would go out inappropriately dressed on winter days, etc. Don't know if stories like this about him are based in fact or not. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There are one or two I've heard it said about, I think either Pal Erdos or Nikolai Tesla. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

They say Issac Newton would be so overwhelmed with new thoughts and ideas that the moment he started getting out of bed, he would just stop and sit there for sometimes hours lost in thought. Never heard a quote just like that one about him, though 85.210.119.218 (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

2 questions about reference desk ues

1. I recently asked a question, and got a useful answer, which referred to an answer to my O.P. of Dec. 12 (or so). I'd like to find it (the answer), But the history doesn't run earlier than Dec. 17. What to do?

2. How do I log in? I'm directed to the login page, but when I enter my name, or reasonable variants, I'm told "no such name".  ??? (Also, there seems to be a typo at the head of the Request for Login section. Shouldn't it say "will not be publicly visible"?

Thanks to all who respond. I'm sorry to take up your attention with these newbie questions, but I can't find any directions to more suitable ones.

Robert Pearlman 64.206.70.114 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 December 12, to log in you need to create an account which you may name whatsoever you choose so long as someone else has not taken that username already. 50.101.153.9 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) 1 To view older threads, you can visit the archives, they're somewhere at the top of this page.

2 If your name is not recognized when you login, are you really sure that you registered under that name? Maybe you could try registering again, considering that the username would still be available. It is possible that your username was removed because it violated Wikipedia's username policy. - Lindert (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have noted that some very recently delisted threads will not show up immediately when you would have expected them to be archived. I am not sure what advice to give. A thread on this at the talk page for this page (scroll way up) might help. μηδείς (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Christian baptism and nudity

Baptism by submersion in the Eastern Orthodox Church

Do modern Christians only baptize their babies naked while adult converts are permitted to wear clothes for the sake of modesty? 140.254.121.33 (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The picture shows a ceremony in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. In both Roman Catholicism and all the various Protestant churches, Baptism is performed fully clothed. In many traditions, a small amount of water is dribbled over your forehead, so you don't get too wet. In some Protestant traditions, such as the Baptists, there is "full immersion", but even then, modesty is retained. In the Church of England, there is a tradition for babies to wear elaborate lace Christening robes that may have been passed down through several generations. Adults just wear something fairly smart. Alansplodge (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Does a person have to schedule a baptism? Is there a time difference between the scheduling date and the actual baptismal date? What if a prospective Christian convert takes a class, but the class extends all the way to wintertime? Will baptism be cancelled until there is warmer weather? 140.254.121.33 (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

In general, baptism would have to be scheduled, and would usually require you join either the congregation or at least the denomination as a whole. I think about the only chance of getting baptized without scheduling it is if you find a revival meeting organized by Baptists (and even these days, they're more likely to schedule Baptisms rather than dunk anyone then and there).

I think the issue of whether a baptism would occur in the winter would be up to the individual and the baptizer's sense of how healthy the baptized is, and whether or not the church has an indoor baptismal pool. Most churches, as far as I'm aware, practice indoor baptism if there's any chance weather might be a problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• I am not sure what denomination these full-body baptizers represent (and would like to know), but here's a relevant clip from perhaps the best movie ever made. μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

An extremely evangelical full immersion in a more WASPy part of South in the 1930s, they're most likely Baptist (unfortunately, not that that sort of baptism is common). Other denominations open to such evangelism and popular in the area tended to go with Christening. The Mennonites practice full immersion adult Baptism, as I recall, but they're not as likely to baptize passers-by. It's possible that they could be Churches of Christ or Disciples of Christ, but the crowd seems a bit pale compared to most Churches of Christ congregants, and Baptists have always outnumbered both groups, AFAIK. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Pentacostals also use full immersion and are common in the U.S. South. Rmhermen (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

True now, but they were a minority when O Brother Where Art Thou is set. Pentecostals were also early and major proponents of racial integration, and the crowd in that video is whiter than mayo on Wonder bread. Also, that would be the calmest and most meditative Pentecostal service I've ever seen. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

For a more Pentecostal depiction, one might see (if one can find an uncut copy) the very un-PC Our Gang short Little Sinner. "The baptism'll start when the eclipse totalizes." Deor (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I find Baptism particularly interesting. If you are seeking a biblical narrative regarding baptism, refer to Philip and the Eunuch: http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Acts/Philip-Ethiopian-Eunuch . Perhaps this may clarify the original process of scheduling a baptism. Furthermore, I would look into the Church's Code of Canon Law, it provides details into the type of information you are seeking. Twillisjr (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The commentary doesn't really say anything about clothing or lack thereof, or even whether it was by full immersion or pouring. The Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law would only provide information only for the Catholic Church. Book IV, Part I, Title I, "Baptism" does not mention clothing or lack thereof in any of its chapters. IV.I.I.I does say, however, "Although baptism can be celebrated on any day, it is nevertheless recommended that it be celebrated ordinarily on Sunday or, if possible, at the Easter Vigil." Ian.thomson (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If the OP is from Russia, I can see why he's worried about winter Baptism - see Russia's trend for dipping children in frozen rivers; brrrr! Alansplodge (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Come in, it's warm inside! (Zoom in for the sign)

Traditionally, major churches in Russia would have a larger, unheated, summer building (for services from Easter thru September) and a smaller heated winter buildng (see e.g. Kizhi Pogost). The "winter church" could, of course, be simpler a comparatively small heated section of a larger church building. In either case, there would be a space for conducting sacraments, including infant baptisms, in relatively comfortable conditions throughout the year. But of course you could always elect to wait until the outdoor "blessing of the waters" event on the Epiphany (in mid-January). :-) -- Vmenkov (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The IP locater indicates that the IP is from Ohio in the US. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

December 21

Janice the turkey monster

Which painting is Janice the Turkey Monster (http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/3/8/1331212425004/Stephen-Collins-cartoon-t-002.jpg) in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.113.87 (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion by Francis Bacon. Mikenorton (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

How did America become "christian"

From what I understand most of the founding fathers of America were deists or believed strongly in separation of Church and State. It seems to me that most European immigrants at the time were fleeing religious persecution in their native countries, but ironically these European countries became strongly non-religious as time progressed to modern times, while Americans became very christian. When and how did this occur? ScienceApe (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

See History of religion in the United States. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Christianity in America preceded the split from Great Brittain. The initial migrants were predominantly Christian. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The majority of immigration took place long after the split - but either way, the US is predominantly Christian because the majority of migrants were. The 'founding fathers' may well have created the institutions, and have certainly played a significant part in the creation myth of the USA, but they didn't 'found' the population. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd challenge the idea that most European countries have become 'strongly non-religious'. There's less uniform Christian observance, but the majority of people still have some form of religious or spiritual belief. (The figures for those who do not are up sharply in the British census from 2001 to 2011, according to recent reports, but still not a majority.) And many devout Christians believe strongly in separation of Church and State. There's a widespread view that once states started getting their hands on Christianity (325 AD or thereabouts), it went badly for the integrity of Christianity. I'm not sure I agree, but it's hardly a rare view. So in short, I think the OP's premises are wrong. America is as it was; a predominantly Christian country with formal separation of Church and State. (Don't forget that many European countries still do not have this - some still have established churches, and others have church taxes.) AlexTiefling (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with your main point, but the question on religion in the UK census has been criticised for being leading (they won't fix it so that they can compare results with previous censuses), and the British Social Attitudes Survey has found a majority of people claiming to be non-religious (BBC article). 130.88.99.231 (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The 19th-century author De Tocqueville had a passage (in Democracy in America, I believe) about how separation of church and state in the U.S. had the paradoxical effect of strengthening the hold of religion on the people. However, also remember that the prohibition against having an official "established" church/religion at first only applied on the federal government level; several individual states had established churches for a while even after the constitution was adopted... AnonMoos (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem that the many of the early migrants had with religion in England at the time, was the government's version of Anglicanism, which it was virtually compulsory to follow. The migrants often followed much more fundamentalist brands of Christianity, which they wanted to be free to practice. So the separation of church and state was about the freedom to be more radically Christian. Alansplodge (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, 'fundamentalist' is a highly anachronistic term to apply to those early American Protestants; any they encompassed radicals of all sorts, not all of whom were well-treated in the New World either. The treatment of Quakers in Boston was particularly harsh. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Please don't perpetuate the myth that the US was colonised by fundamentalist Christians fleeing religious persecution. It simply isn't true - the overwhelming proportion of immigrants to what became the US went there for economic reasons, and in the hope of a 'better life' - as indeed do more recent immigrants, legal or otherwise. They brought their Christianity with them (and often still do), but that wasn't why they came. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Who are you replying to? I said no such thing. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The "Founding Fathers" were the wealthy elite; their beliefs weren't representative of the majority of the population. thx1138 (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The Puritans may not have been a numerical majority, but it is generally understood that they had a huge influence on the emergence of the United States and its Constitution. A quick Google produced pages of results including Puritanical Influence on the U.S. Constitution, PURITANISM, ENLIGHTENMENT AND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, Reflections on Puritan America & the Constitution, Puritanical Influence on the US Constitution and so on and on. Is there a contrary opinion? Alansplodge (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"Huge influence"? I don't think that anyone would argue against the proposition that the Puritans had some role in the development of American political culture. However, those who argue for a "huge influence" are typically modern religious conservatives who believe (contrary to the consensus among academic historians) that the founders of the United States had mainly religious motivations. Note that at the time of the founding of the United States, hardly anyone considered himself or herself a Puritan. That term describes a 17th-century religious movement. Most of its proponents had been dead for nearly a century by the time the United States was founded. Furthermore, Puritanism was mainly limited to New England, which made up roughly one third of the future 13 colonies by population. (There were Puritans in other colonies, but they were a minority there.) Puritanism was not very influential in the Middle or Southern colonies representing most of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention. On the other hand, it is hard to argue against the idea that congregationalism, or the subset of Protestantism in which each congregation determines its own affairs and leadership, had a big influence on American political culture. But it is sloppy to equate congregationalism with Puritanism, which was a much narrower tradition. Here is a paper that argues that the Puritan influence on the Constitution was limited. I'm sure that there are others, though they aren't as easy to search for as papers making the opposite argument.

As for the original question, I don't think that the United States has become more Christian over time. As others have said, the elite who founded the country were less conventionally religious than most ordinary Americans of the time. However, at the time of the country's founding, non-Christians were a minuscule minority. There were slightly over 2,000 Jews in a population of 3 million in 1790, or less than 0.1% of the population, with no more than a handful of free citizens who were neither Christian or Jewish. (There may have been many thousands of Muslim slaves, but they had practically no influence on the political culture of the early United States.) A larger proportion of the Christian population were actively observant than today. Since then, the United States has seen the emergence of a significant minority who belong to either non-Christian religions (especially Judaism and Islam, but also Buddhism and Hinduism) or who claim no religion. Even among the nominally Christian, religious observance has fallen off since the 19th and early 20th century. Marco polo (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd blame the Cold War for most of the "America is a Christian nation" attitude (then why are does half our government oppose helping our poor and sick?</soapbox>) since that era is responsible for "Under God" being inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God we trust" inserted into our currency. That was also around the time when non-Christian minorities started to grow significantly, and the growth of minorities causes the militant wing of any majority (see ancient Rome, the Middle east, and the Hindutva movements) to freak out and assert that "this nation has always been a [homogeneous] (insert majority here) nation!"

However, I also know that when Jewish and Irish Catholic immigration to New York was increasing during the 19th century, some folks were freaking out about not only the former group, but the latter. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Irish Catholics became a big issue (at least in New York and Boston) in the 1840s and 1850s, while Jews didn't arrive in very significant numbers until later... AnonMoos (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Not as large then, but there was enough Jewish immigration (even during the 1840s and 1850s) to scare the WASPs. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

A couple of notes: some European countries, like Norway, Greece and the UK are officially Christian, even if specially the UK has large non-Christian populations. Roughly 3/4 of the US population are Christians, the same as in European countries that were deeply Christian like Spain. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

(And yet only 32% of Norwegians can bring themselves to say they believe in God. Amazing how State churches work out. </soapbox>) Ian.thomson (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Harvard credit

according to this Harvard does not grant any credit from AP exams but will grant an "advanced standing". And a sentence from the link "Students may be allowed to use an AP exam score (or appropriate international credential) to meet certain requirements (foreign language, introductory departmental course, etc.)." What I don't understand is if you can't get college credit then how can you meet certain requirements? I know each credit in Harvard equivalent to an entire year course so 4 credits = 1 year full load of courses so you will need 16 credits to graduate, in other word get the bachelor degree. Let say I'm required to take 1 credit of Spanish but my AP exams can be used to fulfill that requirement so basically I'm not required to take the Spanish class anymore but I'm not getting any credit either. I don't understand how this system works. Either way you need to get 16 credits to graduate so if the AP exams only help you meet the requirements but you have to take other classes anyway to get enough 16 credits to graduate, I don't see any point of the AP exams fulfill the requirements. I mean either way you have to take some classes or the others, doesn't matter if it is elective class or required. To sum it, basically the point of AP exams are just for that you can take more elective class than you could? Is there any beneficial to take more elective classes?184.97.227.164 (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It says that students with advance standing may graduate after 5 or 6 terms, so I assume they just reduce the number of required credits to graduate. In effect, you can't use the AP courses as credit, but you get a discount on a year or year and a half. They also warn that Advanced Standing limits a student's options, especially for scholarships that are meant to help in the (now absent) senior year, so it looks like you'd take the same first three years as everyone else, but would graduate as a junior rather than a senior. All this is making me glad I went to the finest school there is... in South Carolina. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No no, I'm not talking about advanced standing, it wasn't my question. Let say assuming that I don't use my AP exams for advanced standing but to fulfill some required courses then what is it going to do? What does that benefit me?184.97.227.164 (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see much for AP stuff at Harvard except for advance standing. The section "Using AP Exams for Placement or to Meet Requirements" only discusses using AP exams for advanced placement. Unless there's something elsewhere on the website, it doesn't appear to make any difference to Harvard whether or not you took AP courses Harvard unless you go for Advanced Placement. The only exceptions appear to be for off-topic courses (like calculus for med school students, or second languages assumably for those not majoring in that language). Any more information would probably be at the department for the major in question.

You would probably still need credit in some sort of second language, but could take a higher level course for it instead of the introductory course. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the point of take a higher course in a second language if I'm not majoring in it? This is my point, to me AP exams are useless being used for advanced standing. I'm just wondering if there are other benefiting from meet some requirements without getting the credit with AP exams?184.97.227.164 (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)