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

January 30

How to find how many translations a book has?

I am currently working on improving Marion Zimmer Bradley's 1987 novel The Firebrand. I was wondering if there is a good source that monitors how many translations a book has received (perhaps a database of some kind?) I know this particular novel has at least five, but I suspect it is a lot higher. Any help would be much appreciated. Ruby 2010/2013 04:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies if this is too obvious and you've already tried it, but have you contacted The Trustee at the first external reference at the bottom of our article on MZB? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I hadn't considered that! Thanks for the idea. I'll email her, though my concern will be that I won't be able to use her as a reliable source to verify the information... Ruby 2010/2013 16:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Index Translationum.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks so much! Ruby 2010/2013 14:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Modern-day descendants of Julius Caesar

are the modern-day descendants of Julius Caesar/ Augustus (if any exist) known? And if not, when did they lose track of them? During the fall of Rome? Who was the last known descendant? Venustar84 (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have any European ancestry yourself, look in the mirror. You're likely a living descendant of either man. The Most recent common ancestor for all humans may be as recent as 2000 years ago, for European ancestry this is usually quoted to an even later time, say around the time of Charlemagne. That's because Charlemagne lived 1200 years ago; counting 4 generations per century or so, that's 48 generations. 2^48 (because we all have 2 parents) gives about 281,000,000,000,000. That's more people than have ever lived since the first anatomically modern humans. So, if Augustus Caesar does have any living descendants, you're very likely one of them. --Jayron32 07:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess the OP is interested in people whose descent from "big Julie" is documented, rather than simply deduced. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather claim Sky Masterson as an ancestor, but maybe that's just me. --Trovatore (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

... and, of course, Jayron's arithmetic is based on a false model that ignores inbreeding. Anyone who has constructed a large family tree will know that most of the "millions" of ancestors turn out to be the same people. Dbfirs 07:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, for people who lived two thousand years ago, unless they lived in an extremely isolated region (e.g. Tasmania), then if they have any current living descendants at all, they're likely to have millions of descendants... AnonMoos (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That's true, but it doesn't follow that any particular person living now is descended from any particular person then. Until the advent of bicycles, trains and motor vehicles, most people married someone within walking distance (or a horse-ride if they were sufficiently affluent to own a horse). It is only in the last century that gene pools are generally being mixed more widely. Even invasions didn't always have a big input to the gene pool in some regions (though they obviously did in the Americas!). Dbfirs 08:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

What I'm finding in my own research is that the exponential growth by generation rapidly overwhelms any tendency not to move. While research shows that people in the UK often show the same DNA markers as people living in the same area 2000 or more years ago, this doesn't mean that all or even most of a modern Brit's ancestors lived in the same area. There are both localised drift factors (people marry people from 'the next village over', and over time a person's descendants may live many villages over indeed) and long-range migrations (my ancestors include French and Irish refugees, who moved to England when times were hard). If you have one such ancestor 160 years ago (at the time of the Great Irish Famine, say), then you can expect to have about 32 Irish ancestors (in a single generation) twice that long ago. A few examples: The Roman occupying army in Britain included Roman citizens from all around the Mediterranean basin, and auxiliaries from further afield in Africa and Asia - just one of these men deserting and marrying a local Celt might furnish every modern member of the BNP, the NF and the EDL with African ancestors much more recent than the general 'Out of Africa' descent common to us all. Or consider the semi-legendary story that when the Richard II married Anne of Bohemia, his standard-bearer married her cousin, giving many subsequent members of the Tyndall family and all their many descendants Polish ancestry long before modern Polish migration to the UK. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think also that people are drastically misunderstanding the scales of the numbers here. We're talking about the fact that 50 generations would represent over one quadrillion ancestors. Yes, there is some level of pedigree collapse to be expected here; still even with that every generation is essentially guaranteed to have more numbers of ancestors than the previous. But seriously: one quadrillion is a freaking HUGE number, and that number of generations doesn't even get us close to Caesar's time. Between Caesar's time and today have been about 80 generations. 2⁸⁰ is more than 1.2 septillion. 1,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. By contrast, there have, since 50,000 BC, been an estimated 108 billion humans: [1] [2]. Thats 108,000,000,000. In the past 2000 years, there have only been an estimated 60,000,000,000 people. Even if millions of the slots in a person's ancestral tree are filled with the same individual holding multiple slots, the scales here are enormous. These numbers aren't in the "well, it's kinda close, so it's possible". The numbers are simply that overwhelming. Now, in the such as the clean break between the populations of the hemispheres which occured many thousands of years before that; I wouldn't expect that any pre-Columbian American natives would have any decedents from Caesar. But, the claim that any European alive today wouldn't have been descended from every European alive at Caesar's time, excepting those that demonstrably have no living decedents at all, is preposterous when you look at the numbers. The type of isolation necessary to claim that simply doesn't hold water for a place as fairly contiguous as Europe, especially one that has experienced a fair degree of mobility in its population during that time period. --Jayron32 20:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron that the enormous numbers provide a powerful argument, and his analysis is no doubt accurate for the Americas and other areas where mobility is the norm, but the numbers collapse very rapidly in areas where mobility was rare during most of the past few thousands of years. Perhaps my view is influenced by the fact that I live in such an area -- I expect that we had the odd member of the Roman army who bred near to here, and eventually the Normans would spread their genes this far north, and we definitely have Norse blood, but I cannot see any way that this model of genetics would guarantee that I was descended from one particular Roman. Dbfirs 22:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I also think you are underestimating the mobility of European peoples over the past 2000 years. Since the time of Caesar there have been dozens of mass migrations with varying degrees of intermarriage between peoples. You've got the Huns, the Rus, the Vikings, the Normans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Visigoths, Ostragoths, the various Islamic movements (Al-Andalus), all the Celtic peoples, the Jewish Diaspora, etc. etc, and that's just within the first 700-800 years or so after Caesar. Every one of these provided ample opportunity for significant mixture of gene pools. Europe of the past 2000 years has been a fantastically mobile population. --Jayron32 06:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. Unless an entire village or region experienced pedigree collapse on the scale of Carlos II of Spain, there would sooner or later be one ancestor from outside. That one ancestor brings with them their own exponential growth of ancestors. It only takes one late-Roman amber merchant in the Baltic to have a single productive one-night-stand with a local woman for everyone in Scandinavia at the time of the Battle of Stiklestad to be descended from every patrician living at the time of Caesar (who left any descendants at all). Just one. And there are plenty of documented examples of strange-seeming descents: for example, the present Marquess of Milford Haven, a cousin of the Duke of Edinburgh, is descended, through Pushkin, from Abram Petrovitch Gannibal, an African slave freed and ennobled by Peter the Great. It's entirely possible that the half-native-American 'Captain John West', who signed the Virginia-Indian Treaty of 1677/1680 (see Cockacoeske), was descended from the children of Mary Boleyn, possibly by Henry VIII. And so on. What if one of the Vinland vikings had had a child with one of the skraelings? Again, it only takes one person from any given community producing only one child who becomes a member of a different community for every member of the latter community to be their descendants after enough generations. And 'enough' is a much smaller number than you'd think, as Jayron's numbers demonstrate. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding what a most recent common ancestor is. Every person alive today is a descendant of the MRCA, but that doesn't mean we're also descendants of the MRCA's contemporaries. In fact, a random contemporary of the MRCA is almost certainly not a MRCA himself. The identical ancestors point, estimated to be 5000-15000 years ago, is the time at which all people are either common ancestors of everyone today, or left no descendents alive today. This means that even had Caesar lived 5000 years ago, and had children, it's possible that nobody today is his descendant. --140.180.254.9 (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

JackofOz -- Any kind of documented "Descent from antiquity" at all is extremely rare or semi-non-existent in Europe... AnonMoos (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I know, thanks. I was just pointing out that documentary evidence was what the OP was after, assuming it exists, which it almost doesn't. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I'd say entirely non-existent. There comes a point at which all documented European lines of descent merge into a general prosopography of the early Middle Ages. As a rule of thumb (which I just made up, if you have a documented ancestor who held an hereditary peerage at the beginning of the 18th century or earlier, the odds are good that you too have documented ancestry going back to the Dark Ages. I've been doing some family history research on a large and complex family recently; the peasantry parts of it can only be traced to about 1795, the bourgeois parts to about 1710, and the landed gentry parts to about 1490 (assuming the prior research I'm following up is reliable) - but the titled part includes Kings of England and of France, and the rulers of Kievan Rus. From those, one can work back to the early days of the Frankish Kingdom (with due skepticism, of course - records can just be wrong sometimes) - but no further. There just aren't reliable records of who the ancestors of the early Dark Ages warlords were. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Caesar's illegitimate son Ptolemy XV Philopator Philometor Caesar (son of Cleopatra VII Philopator) was his most recent descendent. He was executed on his step-brother Augustus's orders. Caesar's unnamed grandchild died a few days after their mother's death in childbirth.
Sleigh (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So, if there is no documented descendant, it is possible that no one today is a descendant of Caesar. However, we of course cannot exclude that campaining across Gaul and other countries in his early years as a general may have led him to indulge in some of the victory prizes that were common in those days.--Lgriot (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably. Like my pet parakeet Onan, he may have spilled his seed in all manner of warm recesses in nether regions. But none of that was ever documented, so we'll never know anything about it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a joke, right? You seriously do not have a parakeet named after someone who is famous in the Bible for masturbating, right? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't masturbating, it was coitus interruptus. 109.99.71.97 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a practical difference? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It can be either; or both. Onanism is a euphemism for masturbation. But I was alluding to Dorothy Parker's cute saying. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Popular rumour had it at the time that the pleasures of Caesar's early career were somewhat different. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

He was thought to spread it around both ways, but seems to have preferred the ladies. This guy claimed to be the descended from one of his Gallic girlfriends. On the talk page of the JC article a while back someone appeared claiming to represent the 'House of Julius Caesar': Talk:Julius_Caesar/Archive_2#Family_Tree. Paul B (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Suetonius reports that Caesar was referred to as "every woman's man, and every man's woman". Since we know he was fertile, and he did not lack opportunity, there is a good chance of several undocumented children. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me of the Suetonius quotation! I use Caesar in history talks as an example of a famous person whose behaviour could reasonably be classed as bisexual before the term existed. And I agree that he probably left little eagle-nosed bastards scattered across the Republic's provinces. We are probably all descended from him. But that statistical likelihood doesn't provide us with any firm evidence. Paul B, that's a hilarious thread! That's a royal pretence I've never seen before. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

One of the few people on the planet who could plausibly trace their pedigree back over 2000 years is Elizabeth II. And, sure enough, it can be shown (popup warning!) that she is descended from a sister of Caesar. However, care should be taken in drawing conclusions from this, since a) much of the research was done in the Middle Ages by kings specifically seeking to establish themselves as descendants of the great ancient leaders, and b) it can also be shown, in more or less dubious ways, that 'Er Madge is descended from Brian Boru, Gengis Kahn, Jesus, and Mohammed. As has been mentioned above, she (and I, and probably you) can legitimately claim descent from any similarly ancient person from Europe or the Near East. See Descent from antiquity. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear: that's a wholly unreliable source. It cannot really be 'shown' that anything of the sort is the case. The existence of forged documents for political purposes has a long history - consider the Privilegium Maius or the Donation of Constantine. Quoting an obviously bad source proves nothing. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

While I hear what you say Alex, I was under the impression that people with hereditary peerages had to have their birth lines registered, and that the succession to the title was dependent on blood line. So I can prove, for example, that my 5x great grandfather married the 4th daughter of the then Earl of Hastings: her bloodline is a matter of public record back to the creation of that peerage (the Battle of Hastings) and hence I can trace my ancestry back 1000 years. So QE2, in order to establish her claim to the throne, has a bloodline traceable back to at least then and, as is also well known, back to the Anglo-Saxon monarchs. Beyond that is necessarily speculation, I'll grant you that. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant - see my discussion above about documented genealogies back to the Dark Ages. I was only taking issue specifically with Cucumber Mike's assertion that HMQ can 'plausibly trace her pedigree back over 2000 years'. No, she can't. As to hereditary peerages, a lot of the most ancient ones rest on medieval court cases and complicated re-creations and so on. It's not quite as simple as saying "I'm descended from the nth Earl, so I'm descended from the 1st Earl" - but nearly so. It always pays to check out the specific details. And as I mentioned, if you're related to an hereditary peer more than 300 years ago, you're probably descended from royalty too, and thus also have a documented genealogy back some 1400 years. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just to point out, the most recent common ancestor assumes one single population of randomly mating individuals without regard to language, religion, distance, or geographical barriers, and the sexual selection tendency of people to chose mates that resemble themselves. A 2,000 year figure for Europe, let alone the world, is dubious in the extreme. μηδείς (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe the figure for Europe is more like 1000-1200 years, not 2000. You must remember that if even one immigrant comes into a gene pool and has at least one child, they have an 80% chance of being a universal ancestor of everyone several generations later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whichwayto (talk • contribs) 02:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I must remember nothing--you need to cite a study that addresses the effects of language, religious, political and geographical barriers, and doesn't just treat Europe as a monolithic gene pool with random mating and no internal barriers. μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would think a zero chance was more accurate than the claimed 80% chance. Random mating just doesn't happen anywhere, even in modern society, and this model is even less valid for patterns of marriage in the past. I don't have the knowledge or ability to set up an accurate mathematical model of gene spread, but the studies that I've read suggest that it was slow in the past and not "universal" in the sense that every gene spread everywhere. Dbfirs 22:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's not confuse matters. Genetic drift guarantees that there are plenty of ancestors that you have no genes with in common at all. Indeed, as far back as the time of Caesar, you have far more ancestors than you have discrete genes, even allowing generously for pedigree collapse. As discussed above, it's not at all inconsistent for the vast majority of your ancestors at any given historical date to live in pretty much the same place, while still also having a numerically large number of ancestors from almost arbitrarily distant places. Your ancestors are not only the people you have inherited your genes from: they're all the people on whose existence yours logically depends. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's fair comment, and thanks for the links. I still think it is unlikely that any specific person chosen from the world population today will be descended from a particular individual who lived 2000 years ago. The probability will obviously vary by region and historic individual. Identical ancestors point (mentioned above) seems to address this question, but doesn't give figures for particular populations. Dbfirs 09:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Alleged proposed constitutional amendments

I'm looking for any and all information on the following alleged proposed constitutional amendments [3]:

1916: all acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army

1933: an attempt to limit the personal wealth to $1 million

1936: an attempt to allow the American people to vote on whether or not the United States should go to war

All the online sources I found so far were copied from one another and all have zero references to back up the claims. Dncsky (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The last one looks a lot like the Ludlow Amendment. The personal wealth amendment is referenced here as "proposed by Congressman Wesley Lloyd" with a reference to a 1992 work by Sam Pizzigati, "The Maximum Wage". — Lomn 14:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much!Dncsky (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

I like the 1916 proposal. The problem was that those who decided to go to war, the President and Congress (the Senate formally and the House via allocation of funds) were not directly affected. They were personally exempt from serving, and could also exempt anyone they cared about, by various means. Also, many of those sent to war were too young to vote when those representatives were elected. However, eliminating the draft was a significant step. This meant that one group of elites could no longer decide to send another group to war, against their will. StuRat (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I was fascinated by the 1916 proposal as well. Reminds me of Starship Troopers and the Spartans. But alas the proposal is no longer feasible since US' last declaration of war was more than 70 years ago. Pity.Dncsky (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Will Rogers had a better idea: That a country shouldn't be allowed to go to war until it had paid all its debts incurred from the previous war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to reconstruct a currently spoken language (grammar, vocabulary, phonology) given it's parent language and sister languages?

How to do that? Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would you want to? I suspect that you could make a reasonable attempt, but it wouldn't be wholly reliable, and you can always do better with a current language by going to talking to its actual speakers. But you'd be better off asking this on the Language Ref Desk. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

An attempt to predict modern English based solely on Old English and modern German would almost certainly be a miserable failure... AnonMoos (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status of WW2 propaganda poster

Re: File:Here are the the liberators-Italian WWII Poster - Statue of Liberty.jpg

There are 2 reasons given why this poster is PD

1. This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years,

2. This picture was issued by the government of the Italian Social Republic, a state now considered as illegal in Italy. Hence, no legal claims can be made on it.

Re 1. We donT have an author, so how does the expiration of copyright apply.

Re 2: Are all fascist government posters (such as the work of Gino Boccasile) PD because the Italian Social Republic is considered illegal in Italy? Would they also be PD outside of Italy? I have only found this reference to Boccasile http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Gino_Boccasile But it does not discuss the propaganda posters.

Thank you very much

reinhard schultz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilderwelt (talk • contribs) 12:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be better to raise the issue at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright... -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with AnonMoos, but just to chime in briefly on your listed issues:

1. Most countries also have a rule about expiration of copyright for works that have no authors or for which authorship is unknown, e.g. 70 years from publication

2. The properties of the outlawed regime are likely to have been confiscated or inherited by the new government, so the copyright is likely to be held by the current Italian govenrment. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The copyright of Mein Kampf is owned by the state of Bavaria. --PlanetEditor (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Rechtsfähigkeit/権利能力 (Kenri Nōryoku)

This question was originally posted to the Lanugages reference desk, but someone there suggested, along with providing the assistance that they could, that I bring the question to another desk to see if they could be of more assistance.

This is a question about different legal systems. I am currently attempting to translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia on dōjin circles, and the original Japanese article leads off the Organization section (as I understand it) by mentioning that although dōjin circles have some protection under freedom of association, legally they are generally considered to be private organizations, with "private organization" then linking to a page entitled what translates roughly as "Groups without kenri nōryoku." When I go to the Japanese article directly on "kenri nōryoku," (which has no linked English Wikipedia equivalent) I find that it is a concept from German law (which a lot of the Japanese legal system is based on) that seems to be very similar to legal personality and legal capability. However, when I look at those two pages in the English Wikipedia, both of them have their own pages in the German Wikipedia that are completely separate (German legal personality page, German legal capability page) from the German page for what I have been calling kenri nōryoku (The German Wikipedia calls it "rechtsfähigkeit"). The Japanese Wikipedia, for its part, has a separate page on legal personality, but not legal capability. What is the difference between the concept of Rechtsfähigkeit/kenri nōryoku and legal personality and legal capacity? Is there an article on the English Wikipedia that is roughly equivalent? Do we have need of one? My Japanese isn't quite good enough to translate legal terms myself, but with a brief summary, I could put up a translation request, and then I'd have something to link to. Oh yes, and for the moment, I have the sentence in question translated as, "Freedom of association is protected in Japan, and thus dōjin circles have some legal protection. However, they generally are considered to be private associations devoid of legal personality under Japanese law." Reinana kyuu (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok if I've understood your question, legal personality and legal capacity are two different concepts. The first relates to whether an organisation or association of people can itself be treated as a participant by the law. The second relates I think to the concept of capability - which is whether someone who is a person should be recognised as being capable of making decisions for themselves, usually in the case of the very young or those with mental incapacity of one sort of another (so if an old person with dementia decides to refuse treatment, then it must be decided by law whether their impairment is such as to render them legally 'incapable' of making such a decision, and thus do not have the recognised capacity). I think the first concept is the one that is equivalent to the Japanese one - it is a basic concept within legal theory around the world - compare the example of partnerships, incorporated companies and unincorporated associations. Under different legal systems incorporated companies are generally recognised as having a legal existence separate from that of their owners or shareholders, so a company can undertake a loan, that is not in the name of any individual, and when the company goes bankrupt you cannot chase the owners or shareholders to get your money back (unless in some specified special circumstances where the courts can 'look through' the separate legal personality of the company). The example you mention is of an unincorporated association, and in the UK for example these do not generally have separate legal personality, so debts would personally be held against the members jointly and severally, see Voluntary_association. A partnership however is a special type of association which under some circumstances is recognised as a person in its own right separate from the members, see Partnership. Hope this makes sense, sorry if I misread your question ---- _nonsense ferret 15:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

and Capacity (law) is the other article you were looking for, as noted above, it is probably not the concept you are looking for ---- _nonsense ferret 15:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much. It answers part of the question, insofar as it gives me a roughly equivalent set of wiki links and allows me to continue translating the article. I'm still left wondering why kenri nouryoku and its German equivalent are listed separately from the Japanese and German wikis' equivalent of legal personality and trying to figure out what separates the two concepts there. Reinana kyuu (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad it helps at least a bit: to clarify my understanding, there are two concepts in german - Rechtsfähigkeit (this is the quality of being the subject of rights, which I read as legal personality - ie you are a person under the law) and handlungsfähigkeit (this is the quality of being able to act, which I read as legal capacity - whether a person can make valid actions under the law) - was there another term that you saw in german? ---- _nonsense ferret 19:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I now understand that it was the relationship with "Juristische Person" that is confusing - I believe that a Juristische Person is one that is 'Rechtsfähigkeit', and will under the right circumstances be 'handlungsfähigkeit' - see particularly [4] which is linked from the german legal person article - apologies for being slow, my german isn't very fast :) ---- _nonsense ferret 19:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC) and btw I believe 'Juristiche Person' (something that is deemed by law to be a person, ie association/company/partnership) is to contrast with 'natürliche Personen' (an actual real live human being), both types of person are 'Rechtsfähigkeit' ---- _nonsense ferret 23:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all of your help. That was exactly what I needed. It sounds like most of the material is already covered in the English wiki under legal personality, so I won't create a new page. Now, I can continue my translation. Reinana kyuu (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Is a Governor General a commander or not?

I see that David Johnston has been removed from the article Northern Mali conflict (2012–present) and only Stephen Harper has been left as commander. Aren't Governor Generals commanders too? Kotjap (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Almost certainly not. As the representative of the Queen, his role will be almost completely ceremonial, with some very limited constitutional powers. Control of the military will be completely in the hands of the elected government. Rojomoke (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

See Governor-general. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Harper is in the section called "Commanders and leaders". He and Barack Obama and Angela Merkel and the other heads of government are not "commanders" in the sense of being on the ground directing military operations. That's the job of a senior military officer. I'm not at all sure what value resides in listing the various heads of government, as it just serves to confuse readers, as perfectly demonstrated by this question. Australia's Governor-General is also our Commander-in-Chief according to our Constitution, but nobody thinks of her when discussing who's commanding our troops in Afghanistan or the Solomons or wherever. Neither do they think of our Prime Minister. They think of a serving soldier. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure, but as I recall the last American president to actively participate in combat was James Madison, during the War of 1812. Lincoln also paid frequent trips to battlefields, but I don't think he was issuing orders. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The U.S. president, however, is an active commander. It is the president, for example, who would give the order for nuclear weapons to be fired. He or she also makes the ultimate decision, based partly on advice from the military command, whether to commit troops to a given campaign. The title commander in chief is not an empty one in the United States. Presumably heads of government in countries with a Westminster system perform a similar role. I would think that they, too, observe the principle of a military subordinated to civilian control. Marco polo (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I would hope that the question of using nuclear weapons in a war context (or any other context) has become even less than hypothetical. I can't even imagine why you'd mention that, Marco. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Nukes are just an example. The point is that the ultimate command responsibility in the US military really does lie with the president. He will have senior military officers who will tell him what they think he should do, but it's his call. --Trovatore (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, just an example, but one that one hopes is very far from being a realistic example. Not one that's the first thing that pops into people's minds when thinking of presidential options. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the president does still always have access to the football, so realistic or not, the forms are followed. But I think you're getting distracted here. You appeared to suggest an equivalency between the C-in-C-ness of the US president with that of the Australian GG. There is no such equivalency. The US president really is C-in-C, in a meaningful way. It's true that he rarely if ever directs the details of battle on the ground, but he absolutely does decide what campaigns are to be fought. (Congress, however, is the only body that can declare war.) --Trovatore (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll just depart with the thought that, in general, a Commander-in-Chief is not any sort of commander (which is what the OP asked about), despite the word appearing in their title. Your country, as in so many other ways, provides an exception. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I really didn't mean to upset anyone by mentioning nuclear weapons. Of course they are unspeakably horrific, and I personally think that they should be abolished and certainly never used. However, the fact is that they do exist, so there is a real chance that they might be used (all the more reason to abolish them), and it is the U.S. president, in his or her role as commander in chief, who makes the decision whether or not to use them. I'm less certain about this, but I think that the president also has the power to eliminate the nuclear arsenal. Marco polo (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess my concern is that, if you wanted to make the point that "The U.S. president is an active commander", there would have been many less extreme examples you could have chosen. Pandora's Box was opened in 1945 and there's no going back, but let us hope nuclear weapons remain supremely irrelevant to human discourse in all its forms. I share your concern and horror about these devices, but mentioning them at the drop of a hat only serves to keep them front and centre. There have been far more axe murders than countries nuclearly attacking other countries (1), but we don't ever spend time discussing how we hope we're not chopped to bits by axe murderers. Mentioning the nuclear option, when there were so many other things you could have mentioned, tells me there's something on your mind. That bothers me. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that for countries that posess them, it's the ultimate exercise of military power. In the UK, the Prime Minister is the one with his finger on the button, although he (or she) doesn't have any military titles at all. The Queen is the Commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces and to quote from our article; "Long-standing constitutional convention, however, has vested de facto executive authority, by the exercise of Royal Prerogative powers, in the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, and the Prime Minister (acting with the support of the Cabinet) makes the key decisions on the use of the armed forces. The Queen, however, remains the 'ultimate authority' of the military, with officers and personnel swearing allegiance only to the monarch, and retains the power to prevent unconstitutional use of the armed forces, including its nuclear weapons."[5]

In the Commonwealth Realms, this function is, I believe, devolved to the Governor-General, who thus only has any real military power if the whole democratic process goes horribly wrong. In the UK, when and how a decision is made that that point has been reached, isn't clear, but we can worry about that if it ever actually happens. Australia has a written constitution, so somebody may have thought of that in advance. Alansplodge (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

To come back to the U.S. for a bit, the role of the U.S. President as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces does come into play in ways other than the nuclear example Jack objects to above. He does often make strategic decisions with regard to the deployment of troops on a global scale. Now, just as a General doesn't concern himself with the micromanagement of every squad and fireteam under his command, and instead relies on the proper chain of command to see that his strategic leadership is carried out on a tactical and individual level, the President holds a similar role one step higher: He does have a say in deciding broad military policy and strategy, both in the abstract and in the specific, such as deciding where and when to deploy troops, etc. Most recently this has played out during the 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan, as well as the prior 2007 surge in Iraq, both of which were initiated by orders from the President himself (Bush Jr. in 2007, Obama in 2009). The military role of the President are not symbolic or empty: they represent a real, usable, and concrete role. Presidents may be prudent about its use sometimes, but that doesn't mean that they don't have it. --Jayron32 21:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Divorce rates in places and times

Hi, how is it that divorcing has become so much easier in the present than the past? What did we have before that we don't have now, and what do we have now that we didn't have before, that contributed to or curtailed divorce?

Also, what country has the lowest divorce rate? What's their solution to such a low rate? What do they have and not have that we don't and do? Likewise, same questions about the country with the highest divorce rate?

Thanks. --129.130.238.17 (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

What we had before, at least in the US, is that divorces could only be granted for "cause": adultery, neglect, abuse, etc. "Amicable" divorces were generally not allowed. Also, they tended to be expensive, and women typically were not in position to do anything. So the divorce rate was artificially low. As Alan King once said, "In the old days, divorce was a luxury that few could afford." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, there was great shame associated with a divorce then. A high divorce rate isn't all bad. Many marriages are bad, and can't be made better, so divorce is the best option.

Another factor is that women can now file for divorce in relative safety, whereas in "the good old days", their husbands could beat them mercilessly, and the law would not protect them. StuRat (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Men were expected to provide financial support for the family, and their failure to do so could be a successful argument for divorce by the woman. I can vouch for this in my own extended family tree, and with the observation that divorces were more common in the old days than people suppose. Of course, they didn't necessarily go around advertising it. As more public figures got divorces, it might have made the subject more common, though still a novelty, so to speak. I do recall a Will Rogers-ism, about some good thing that happened with him, and how he was "as happy as a Hollywood act-or with a new divorce!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Before the institution of civil marriage, which in many countries didn't happend until a few dozen years ago, you could only get wed in the religious community you belonged and your chance for divorce then depended on what religion it was. Divorce is impossible in the Catholic Church, for example (annulment is, but it's only granted in special cases). — Kpalion^(talk) 22:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, so I have to ask: If one of the parties were found to be guilty of adultery, wouldn't that be grounds for divorce within the RCC? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If i understood your question, no divorce is possible in Roman Catholic Church, under any circumstances. The annulment mentioned is the same sort of thing as a civil annulment which is basically a declaration that there never was a valid marriage there in the first place due to some failure in the conditions required. There are strict canon law grounds under which such an annulment should be given, but some might say in practice the rules are sometimes interepreted generously. ---- _nonsense ferret 23:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

As nonsenseferret said. Plus, if you get a civil and a Catholic Church marriage, and then you get get a civil divorce and remarry, but do not have your Church marriage nullified, and you have sex with your new wife, you're committing adultery in the eyes of the Church, becuase from their perspective you're still married to your previous wife. — Kpalion^(talk) 00:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm just surprised that they don't allow divorce for "immorality", as per Jesus, and as per the Matthew scripture cited by wavelength below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised you've come this far in your life but still don't know about the world-famous (or notorious, take your pick) utter rigidity the RCC has about the question of marriage. Annulment means they're saying it was never a proper marriage to begin with, despite appearances. Other than that, Catholic marriage is indissoluble, period ("What God has joined together, let no man put asunder"), except by the death of one party. Did you never read about how divorce was not possible in deeply Catholic Ireland or Italy - at all - until very recently? See Italian divorce referendum, 1974 and Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I tend to ignore the Catholic Church, except when they try to interpose their perversions on American society. I'm surprised they blatantly ignore the words of Jesus in Matthew, though I shouldn't be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you ought to bone up on what they actually do teach, rather than express surprise it's not whatever you think it ought to be. This is not actually a forum for discussing the perceived failings of religions. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I know more than enough about what they try to impose on the general public. How they handle marriage or other matters within their church, aside from their record on the child-molesting issue I don't much care, as anyone who doesn't agree with the church is free to leave the church. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Learn the teachings of the RCC? Jack, are you serious? Why would we want to learn anything from them, while there is so much more accurate things to fill our brains with? --Lgriot (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I know about all that shit, which is why I left the RCC before most people here were even born. I'm making the point to Bugs that:

• (a) this isn't the place for a general hate session about the RCC or any other religious organisation, even if it had anything to do with the OP's question, which it doesn't. When it comes to the RCC, I reckon I can out-hate anyone here, but this is just not the place for that;
• (b) but if you're gonna do that, you can't on the one hand say "I tend to ignore the Catholic Church" and on the other hand pick holes in their theology which you've just admitted you've never studied. At the very least, read Catholic Church and learn about what they do actually preach, their actual dogma, and then you might have some basis on which to compare their teachings with the behaviour of some of their members. Otherwise, what we have here is one huge theo-wank that even 16-year-olds would be embarrassed to engage in. But if you are thinking of doing option (b), please read option (a) first. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• What does their tolerance for child-molesting have to do with theology? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• What does child-molesting have to do with their rules about marriage and divorce? This thread is about D-I-V-O-R-C-E, nothing else. What would it take for you to understand that? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 13:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• In your learned opinion, has the OP's question been adquately answered, somewhere within this section? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, grow up, 007. You'd have to ask the OP whether he thinks he has the answer he came here for. But if you're asking about the Catholic Church's position on divorce (or, rather, non-position, as they simply do not acknowledge any such thing exists in the religious aspect of marriage), then yes, it has been answered: by Kpalion, confirmed by nonsenseferret, confirmed by Kpalion again, and reiterated by me. And all in the face of your unlearned protestations that it shouldn't be that way. Take it up with the Pope, is all I can say. His telephone number is VAT69.-- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• "007"??? I raised a question about the church's position on divorce, and it was answered. I asked a question about their casual attitude on child-molesting, and it was not answered. But it doesn't matter, as the one has a lot to do with the other. FYI, asking the OP anything is impossible, as he's a drive-by. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• [6]. You've made some comments about child molesting but I've looked in vain for any questions from you about that subject. What was your question, again? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• You attacked my viewpoint on the "theology" of the church, and as Catholics often do, accuse anyone who raises questions about the folks who run the church of being against the church itself. So my question was, "What has tolerance of child-molesting got to do with theology?" Then you started talking about James Bond for some reason. It's interesting, though, to see you implicitly defending the church you rejected. Regardless, I'd like to know why they defy Jesus' words in the Matthew citation. What's their theological basis for that? And don't send me to some wall of text. Tell me, in one sentence, why they don't go along with what Jesus said. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• I rejected your question as I understood it to be a continuation of your off-topic tangent about child molestation in a thread that was solely about divorce, and my response made it clear it was definitely off-topic. I had previously made it very clear this isn't the place for such a discussion. My reference to a "hate-session" was a direct response to Lgriot's raising of no less than six (6) issues, every single one of which was totally irrelevant to this thread. You cannot make that mean that I "accuse anyone who raises questions about the folks who run the church of being against the church itself". Not everything I post here is about you, Bugs. That may surprise you, but there it is.

• You're demanding answers from me, of all people. I made it very clear that I left the Catholic Church a very long time ago. I am not their spokesman. Having been raised in that faith (a matter over which I had no say), I could not fail to be aware of most of their teachings. But I left the Church in my teens, and I have never defended it. Not that I disagree with all of their teachings; but then, I don't disagree with all of Islam or Hinduism or Judaism either. Nothing I said in this thread or anywhere else has ever been about defending what the Catholic Church teaches.

• I particularly make the point that nothing I said in this thread or anywhere else has ever been about defending child-molesters, whether they be in the Catholic Church or anywhere else. And you cannot make any of my words mean that. Your snide comment is despicable, unworthy even of you, Bugs.

• Your viewpoint on the theology of the Church? You said "I tend to ignore the Catholic Church", and you said "How they handle marriage or other matters within their church, aside from their record on the child-molesting issue I don't much care, as anyone who doesn't agree with the church is free to leave the church". That doesn't sound like much of a viewpoint to me, more a total indifference. Not much to attack there. But what's all this talk of "attacking"? I hear a lot of this talk lately. Any time anyone offers an alternative point of view, they’re supposedly "attacking" someone else. That's a pretty childish and defensive and insecure and "cowboys and Indians" standpoint. We’re slightly above that level of discourse here.

• Anyway, this is a reference desk, so you might try Matthew 5:32 for starters. It's not the single sentence you so high-and-mightily demand, but it’s the best you’re getting from me. You could have found it in 5 seconds flat, as I did. You're supposedly a Ref Desk Regular, so you might for a change try doing some of the work you're paid for, rather than taking the lazy way and making others do your research for you. (As an aside, if you want complex theological exegeses to be reduced to single sentences, then I don’t know what to tell you except "best of luck", or "be prepared for some interminably long and utterly incomprehensible sentences".) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

For the first part of your second question, we had more people applying the counsel at Matthew 19:3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

For the second part of your second question, please see this article.

• "Collapse of the World's Fundamental Social Unit: Mass Media's Tremendous Impact on Families"

—Wavelength (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That kind of propaganda is probably what the OP was hoping for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"...what do we have now that we didn't have before, that contributed to or curtailed divorce?"

In one word: freedom. As others noted above, in modern Western countries, you have the legal and social freedom to escape from abusive or otherwise unsatisfactory marriages without being judged, beaten, disowned by family, or worse.

"What did we have before that we don't have now..."

We had religious oppression from the Church, which, as noted above, restricted (and continues to restrict) people's right to spend their lives with partners of their own choosing. This ties in with my next answer:

"Also, what country has the lowest divorce rate?"

See divorce demography. The countries with the lowest divorce rates tend to be poor authoritarian countries, or countries where divorce was only recently legalized due to religious opposition. Chile, for example, only legalized divorce in 2004: [7]. --140.180.254.9 (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. In contrast to the propaganda cited by wavelength, the truth is that in the old days women sat there and "took it", and nowadays they are no longer willing to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hesitant though I am to become embroiled, I feel impelled in the interests of balance to point out that it's not all one-way: not all women are perfectly behaved and a significant proportion of modern-era divorces involve the husband divorcing the wife for 'just cause' - (no axe to grind as I'm a lifelong batchelor). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.21.143.150 (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

January 31

Saying grace (for Mormons)

Once upon a time, I attended a Mormon student party. Before the meal, they said grace. I just forgot what they said exactly. And no, it's not the ones on Wikipedia either. Wikipedia apparently skipped Mormons. At least I know they did not make the sign of the cross. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you asking us what form of grace the Mormons say? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The sign of the cross would be more of a Catholic thing. But are you sure there's any specific or set mealtime prayer? "For what we are about to receive, we are truly thankful, Lord," could be said by most any Christian, or even the lighter-toned "Good bread, good meat, good Lord, let's eat!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Technically, the sign of the cross would be more of a traditional Christian practice, but who's counting.... 86.163.209.18 (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's what a Mormon website says about it:[8] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

As Bug's link says, there are no fixed Latter Day Saint prayers over food or any fixed personal prayers. We believe that prayers are a way to talk to a loving heavenly father and should express your personal needs and your feelings of gratitude. The only common elements in a prayer are opening by addressing god, expressing thanks, expressing needs that we have and closing in the name of Jesus. We don't make the sign of the cross since that's not one of our traditions and the cross plays a smaller role in our theology.Tobyc75 (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, we normally just call it "the blessing on the food," or in a mealtime context, just "the blessing" as in, "Would you please say the blessing?" or even just "Would you please bless the food?" rather than "saying grace." (Not that we have a problem with the expression-- we're just not in the habit of using it.) Latter-day Saints (Mormons) don't make the sign of the cross (except perhaps, in curiosity, to imitate those that do). Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 14:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Ancient prayers in Odyssey

How did ancient people from, say, the Ancient Greek times pray to the gods? How did they know which god they wanted to pray to, how long, and how often they wanted to pray to that specific god? What if one god becomes extremely jealous that a worshipper devotes so much time and energy on one god but not the other and attacks the village or something? How exactly did Odysseus pray? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Prayers were always "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours". The formula outlined in Reading Greek by JACT is that you start with a reminder to the god of all the sacrifices you have made, appeal to their sense of pity, sacrifice something, and ask for good weather, calm seas, etc. IBE (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It's relevant to note that in many places in Classical Greece, monotheism and monolatry were illegal. You showed your piety by giving appropriate honour and respect to several gods - at the very least, the god of the place you were at, and the god relevant to the thing you were doing. You may also be interested in the Homeric Hymns. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about "illegal" (I wonder how many people in 5th-century B.C. Greece even really knew what monotheism was). Rather, practices of acknowledging the gods were a common part of public civic rituals and private hospitality rituals, and someone who refused to participate in such customs was seen as shockingly misanthropic (anti-social and ungrateful), and sometimes as quasi-treasonous if refusal to participate in civic rituals was interpreted as refusing to recognize the obligations which bound him as a citizen of his community. AnonMoos (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I was paraphrasing, from memory, a dimly remembered source which I rather think must have been the early part of Karen Armstrong's A History of God. I don't mean that there was a law code, and that it specifically mentioned monotheism, but rather - as you say - that a failure to show due honour to the gods was socially and culturally unacceptable, and might result in exile or ostracism. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the kind of thread that makes me remember how sad/angry I am that Caprica was cancelled.... --Trovatore (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

AnonMoos mentions that they may not have been aware of monotheism - the big question is what awareness did they have of Jews? To the Romans, they were indeed strange - an unusual band of people who paid no attention to the local gods, and were thus ostracised to a degree (I don't know to what degree, I'm merely trying to understate my knowledge). If the Greeks knew about them, I'd be curious to know their reaction. The Hellenic world stretched pretty far by the time of Alexander - someone must have come across Jews, if not by the time of Plato, surely around the time of Aristotle/ Alexander etc. IBE (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned the 5th-century B.C. above, and Greeks were not really fully aware of Jews until later, during the Hellenistic period (after Alexander's conquests). At that time, some admired Jews as followers of an elevated "philosophy" and as people who largely kept to a strict code of morality, while others viewed Jews as "haters of humanity" and "atheists" because they refused to participate in many common rituals which helped to bind Greek societies together. Probably the majority regarded Jews as being overburdened with strict (and often rather arbitrary) religious scruples which prevented them from fully integrating into non-Jewish society. AnonMoos (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you mentioned 5th-C, although I had overlooked it by the time I added my post. Still, it relates to the OP's question, so thanks for the update. Do you know of an earliest documented point of contact between the Greeks and the Jews? You state they were "not really fully aware of the Jews" - is there evidence of some vague awareness, or any meaningful cultural contact? IBE (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Before Alexander's conquests, the Jews were rather inconspicuous as far as the Greeks were concerned, since Judea ("Yahud") did not have a shoreline, and Jews were not prominent as long-distance traders. The Jewish diaspora was mainly in Persian-ruled areas away from coastlines. Some Greek mercenaries in Egypt would have encountered the Jews of Elephantine (who were by no means strictly monotheistic). If Herodotus referred to Jews at all, he called them "Syrians of Palestine" (which was rather sloppy terminology, since the Jews lived inland, while the term Palestine/Philistia properly referred to the southern coastal plain at that time); and all he knew about them was that they practiced circumcision. I don't think there was any real intellectual interchange until the Hellenistic period. According to Josephus, the first Greek writer to write about Jews in any detail and with any significant degree of understanding was Hecateus of Abdera.... AnonMoos (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Silverites and the U.S. Democratic Party

Why did the Silverites (those in favor of a silver standard--as opposed to a gold standard) take over the United States Democratic Party in 1896 instead of the United States Republican Party? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The article Free silver explains the Republican party position on the issue. --Jayron32 13:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The gold vs. gold-plus-silver dispute was ultimately about whether debtor-friendly or creditor-friendly monetary policies should be pursued, and the fact that during much of the 19th-century, gold currencies had undergone a long-term deflationary trend, sporadically checked by major gold finds. The Republican party as it existed in 1896 was hardly likely to take the debtor-friendly side... AnonMoos (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

So basically the GOP was too pro-business back in the 1890s for them to ever be taken over by the Silverites? Futurist110 (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to phrase it that way. The leading Republican party organizer and money-man in 1896 was Mark Hanna... AnonMoos (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well ... there were Silver Republicans in the West, especially. But you have to remember that silver had its hold mostly in the rural population. In the South, the (white) rural folk were going to be Democrats, and they would not have changed to the Republican party for anything due to Lincoln and also the Republican party in the South was dominated by blacks. So it was either take over the Dems or start a third party, of which there were already too many in 1896. Besides, they were very angry at President Cleveland for supporting gold, so they were more inclined to take over than look elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Epitaph

I would like to know if there is an epitaph starting with "I am not here". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.203.43.223 (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it. Futurist110 (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Bit of a long shot, as I'm not certain I understand the question, but are you perhaps thinking of Do Not Stand at My Grave and Weep? OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought of that one too. Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

121.203.43.223 -- If there's no body, then it's a "cenotaph", not a burial... AnonMoos (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

??? Who mentioned burials? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Just pointing out that if a tombstone inscription begins "I am not here", then it's likely a cenotaph... AnonMoos (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I can just imagine inventor Valdemar Poulsen's tombstone reading, "I'm not in at the moment, but if you leave me a message ..." Clarityfiend (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely the idea is that whether or not the person's mortal remains are entombed in the spot in question, the person themself is not there. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the explanation. In fact, although we say that so-and-so was buried someplace, it's the body that's buried, not the "person". The tombstones are monuments, in memory of the deceased. The deceased person is not there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm here at last ... did I miss anything? IBE (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That reminds me of something Garrison Keillor once said: "They say such nice things about you at funerals; it's a shame I'm going to miss mine by a few days." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

So, anyway AnoMoos, the distinction you're trying to make is not between cenotaphs and burials, but between cenotaphs and gravestones / tombstones / headstones. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

you have been warned about WP:BLP before--don't make baseless suggestions of criminal intent
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Couldn't there be one regarding [criminal speculation removed]?. I mean, there are so many senseless conspiracy theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotjap (talk • contribs) 14:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC) This is the real world version of WP:BEANS. I can come up with whatever crazy-ass conspiracy theory I feel like. I see no reason to entertain the possible existence of a conspiracy theory that no-one has actually been shown to believe in. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Please, help Can anybody help me? How can I contact Theodore Olson, former husband of Barbara Olson. I'm making an essay for the University about the September 11 attacks and would like to interview him. Kotjap (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Pretty sure you can google an answer to that yourself given that he is a high profile lawyer, and it doesn't seem quite appropriate to be giving out people's personal addresses etc on here. ---- nonsense ferret 16:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Least of all to someone who has, half an hour previous, accused that person's ex-spouse of involvement in exceedingly serious criminal activity. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you at least comprehend this?

I took this at the middle part of the essay, any way what can you say? I posted it here since it is related to humanities.

Every man has the interest of self-preservation and the security of property. In a nature where every person is solitary, no one can assure the preservation of himself and his belongings. Thus, it is a must that he would agree with other men in limiting their greed, in such manner that all of their desires can be satisfied. Because, if anyone can kill a person just to satisfy his needs all of us cannot assure our self-preservation. An agreement among us is a must. It is possible that some men may tolerate pain greater than others, but because every person has his limits he would also feel pain at some point. To lessen the possibility of this, he should agree with other men by forging a society where each of us can live peacefully. This society demands the "universalization of moral ideas". Thus, you still have to agree with my terms so that we can form a society even if you have a higher tolerance to pain. Of course, the stronger man would conform to the majority because his endurance has its limits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 16:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not terribly sure that the reference desk is an appropriate place to ask for opinions about the school essay you have written - I assume you are also the poster from [9]. ---- _nonsense ferret 16:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

One thing I'll note - assuming you're the same person who asked for help with something like this recently - is that as well as being quite poorly argued and rambling, your work is written in a very old-fashioned way. Few would now begin a paragraph with "Every man..." unless they wished to say something about the state of men as distinct from women, rather than humans as distinct from animals. And please, please, never use the expression 'you (still) have to agree with my terms', in this or any other context. Nobody is compelled to agree to your terms. It's just not true, and it comes across as unspeakably arrogant, and very poor philosophical argumentation. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with these sorts of questions - in practice, they come up occasionally, and don't lead to the silly arguments and long-winded posts of religious/ theological questions. However, you got a good answer in the other place you posted, although everyone is a little blunt. You are repeating ideas that more or less restate a weaker version of the categorical imperative of Kant, in not so many words, nor perhaps so few. Your basic argument is clear enough, but doesn't add substance to the idea, which every educated person is familiar with. Your prose definitely needs work, but is not unreadable. IBE (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's my best attempt at interpreting this: Every man wants to protect himself and his property. Since everyone is alone nowadays, one can't be guaranteed that his welfare/life and his property will be protected. Thus people should be less greedy so that they will have less things to possibly lose. Everyone should be satisfied with what they have in order to avoid killing other people for their property. We must agree what belongs to whom, since even the strongest and toughest men/people have their limits when it comes to pain, suffering, and losing things. We must agree to a universal morality in order to have a better society where we can all live peacefully and happily. Futurist110 (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

There. How was that? Futurist110 (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The OP's paragraph is strikingly similar to social contract theory. I definitely don't see how it's at all similar to the categorical imperative, or any of Kant's other ideas. Alex claims that "you have to agree with my terms" is arrogant. I agree that it's poor writing, but morality is, almost by definition, prescriptive. In other words, I can impose my morals upon you if those morals are correct, whether you like it or not. A principle which isn't prescriptive is not morality; it's a mere preference. --140.180.247.198 (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree with your assessment of Alex's claim regarding arrogance. It doesn't come out at all arrogant in context - it is not a pure assertion, but part of an argument. I think social contract theory sounds closer than the categorical imperative. The link to the categorical imperative is simply that the OP is using the "do unto others" logic to argue for underlying universal maxims, that must form the basis for our actions. In this case, it is limited to fear of murder/ warfare, but "universalisation of moral ideas" is still hitting a deeper nerve than mere social contract theory, which could be limited to just behaviour. I would still agree that your assessment is better, because the OP's claim lacks any statement that you must act on the basis of a maxim that you think should be universal. The argument instead is a bit softer - it talks more of pragmatism. In summary, the pragmatic reasoning looks like social contract theory; the elevation to "universalisation" looks like a first blush at a categorical imperative, but not much more. The article social contract theory has a section on John Rawls which claims his Theory of Justice is a form of social contract theory with a Kantian flavour - I am merely guessing, but I suspect this is a reference to the categorical imperative. The two are not exactly dissimilar, I think. The OP might be interested in Rawls - his book is often quoted, and still significant. IBE (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

February 1

MONA LISA

The Mona Lisa Page is semi-locked, and I'm wanting to dispute the ficticious claim that the model for the painting was a woman named Lisa G. I tried to find out how to edit or contact someone on this matter, and all I got was a run-around of being transferred from one page to another, where it tells to type this code and that code; very confusing and unhelpful. I would like if a volunteer could please put a note of dispute on the sections of the Mona Lisa article where this person claims "Mona Lisa" is a woman named Lisa G., because this person shows some alleged evidence that Leonardo da Vinci was painting a portrait for a married couple, but that alone is not enough to link the painting of the Mona Lisa to this alleged married couple's portrait. A different painting could of been painted for that married couple, and one has to ask why did Leonardo did not give the Mona Lisa to the married couple if it was meant for them, instead, keeping the painting for many years, traveling with the painting to France, and then selling it to the King of France just prior to his death. I do not like how this "claimant" gets away with a ficticious claim in order to gain money, fame and notoriety! Again I would like if a volunteer could be kind for me and put in a dispute for me. Thank you for your time on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.175 (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the identity of Lisa del Giocondo is much in dispute. If you wish, you can comment at Talk:Mona Lisa, but be aware that you'll have to provide reliable sources which clearly establish your point of view; the sources would have to be pretty spectacular to overcome the fairly comprehensive historical record in this regard. --Jayron32 00:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraph on alternative views seems short in view of the many theories put forward and popularised on TV. I don't have the expertise to judge whether they are just crank theories or whether some have academic backing. In view of the length of time between starting the painting and completion, it is possible that more than one person was involved as "sitter". 166.147.120.175, can you point us to some academic papers that set out some alternatives? Dbfirs 08:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a whole spin off article on alternate views: Speculation about Mona Lisa. It's linked in the main article. Paul B (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

(Sorry, for some unknown reason I missed seeing that link.) Dbfirs 08:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea who is gaining "money, fame and notoriety" from claiming that the picture depicts boring Lisa del Giocondo. As for why he kept it, it seems to have been a kind of showcase for his talents. The painting was most likely commissioned by his own father, so it wasn't as if Mr Giocondo was hounding him through the courts for his money back, since as far as we know he never received any (not that that would have deterred Leonardo. It happened all the time). Paul B (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is that. There's not much money to be made by a long-dead model of a 500 year old painting. --Jayron32 17:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Our article on Lisa del Giocondo clearly explains why the portrait was not given to the couple:

"But later that year, he most likely had to delay his work on Mona Lisa when he received payment for starting The Battle of Anghiari, which was a more valuable commission and one he was contracted to complete by February 1505.[27] In 1506 Leonardo considered the portrait unfinished.[28] He was not paid for the work and did not deliver it to his client.[29] The artist's paintings traveled with him throughout his life, and he may have completed Mona Lisa many years later in France,[13] in one estimation by 1516." --140.180.247.198 (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment historical background

According to some gun-control opponents, the specific purpose of the second amendment to the US Constitution is to grant citizens the right to own firearms in case it is necessary for them to take up arms against Federal government tyranny. This interpretation in the past was associated with the extremist militia movement, but now it is a more mainstream (or at least more publicly expressed) opinion. What historical grounds exist for the idea that the the amendment was originally intended to be read this way? --Halcatalyst (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

In the eighteenth century, the militia was an institution whereby every so often all able-bodied adult white males in a locality were assembled by the government, their weapons were checked to see that they were functional, and possibly they were put through some rudimentary basics of military drills. The British colonists had inherited from the English a suspicion of maintaining "standing armies" when there was no war (not to mention that such an army was expensive), so the militia was the way of filling in the gaps when there was an immediate or local crisis. AnonMoos (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Dick Act (the Militia Act you are referring to) was passed in the 20th century, and it's still in effect: 10 U.S.C. § 311. Shadowjams (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the late 18th century, not the early 20th century. The 1903 bill seems to have been a realization that the old call-out of able-bodied adult white males armed with their own weapons no longer had much military value, and that the U.S. was now going to have a significant peacetime standing army beyond the old nineteenth-century peacetime army (which usually consisted of little beyond Indian-fighting detachments in the west, troops manning some coastal defense forts, and West Point). AnonMoos (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, that law doesn't imply any of those things you're projecting onto it. I'm not aware of any scholarly research that supports the implications you've suggested either. Shadowjams (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Whatever -- you said I was referring to a 1903 law, but I was not referring to 1903 law, and in fact the 1903 law pretty much marks the final end of what I was describing. AnonMoos (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Do we really think that the government of a very young and quite vulnerable nation would specifically legislate for its own violent overthrow? Rhetorical questions aside, I recently saw a good historical essay on this subject online, discussing the context of the creation of the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment's subsequent legislative manifestation in the form of Militia Acts. Sadly, I can't find it. If anyone else remembers this and provides a link, I'd be very grateful, since an ounce of evidence is worth a pound of opinion on a topic like this. AlexTiefling (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, rhetorical questions aside, they had just violently overthrown a tyrannical king and so it's not unheard of to think that men of principle and not politics, thought that protection from government was an important value. There's mountains of scholarly research on the topic; I don't know which essay you read that you identified with, but you don't specify which conclusion it makes. The OP's questions assumes a lot of things, I'm not sure all are correct. Shadowjams (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's impossible, there's a chance they could have thought through the worst possible scenarios (ignoring the issues of the 2nd Amendment in the modern day, of course). And would taking away their guns count as tyranny? Then they would need their guns in case the government came to get the guns that they wouldn't otherwise have... HandsomeNick (TALK) (EDITS) 02:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The second amendment has all kinds of complex historical contexts that, as I understand, are nearly impossible to tease apart today. An obvious example is the English Bill of Rights 1689, which I think our second amendment article mentions. I think the 1689 Bill of Rights has strong ties to the English Civil War, which had some major post-war after-shocks in colonial Virginia, especially Bacon's Rebellion. It's been a while since I read about this topic, but books about Bacon's Rebellion, like, I think, 1676: The End of American Independence, make many connections between Bacon's Rebellion and the "right to bear arms" and the English Civil War, the New Model Army, and much else. Our article on Bacon's Rebellion isn't very thorough, but I think it was in many ways an American echo of the English Civil War, reframed in a colonial context in which a "cavalier" gentry class contended with a "roundhead" yeoman class (those terms do not perfectly translate to colonial Virginia, but are close); part of which revolved around the gentry wanting to protect their "Indian trade" (much of which in the form of a fur trade and an Indian slave trade) from being undermined by the poorer classes clashing and fighting with the Indians—by attempting to disarm the poorer classes in some cases. Nathaniel Bacon's Declaration of the People of Virginia does not directly mention "bearing arms", but does complain that the gentry has "emboldened the Indians against his Majesty’s loyal subjects"—with the implication that "his Majesty's loyal subjects" can only protect themselves in this situation by being armed and forming militias.

Bacon's Rebellion was essentially a failed revolution, in which militias played a key role in fighting the tyranny of the gentry. And to complicate things, the rebel militias attacked the Indians in a brutal, unfair, and rather stupid way. I can't recall the details offhand, but there were attempts to disarm the general colonial population, which further stirred the revolutionary spirit of the times. Search on some of these topics for more info. There is no doubt, as I understand, that the Founding Fathers, a century later, and especially in Virginia, were remembering Bacon's Rebellion in some part when drafting up the second amendment. Thomas Jefferson is often mentioned when talking about the American Bill of Rights, even though James Madison was more involved in actually drafting it up. Madison was a Virginian and was certainly aware of the revolutionary events in Virginia from a century before. While it is hard to imagine the Founding Fathers making provision for sedition, treason, and further revolution (excepting perhaps Jefferson, maybe), the Virginian founders at least knew that Virginia had been subjected to tyrannical rule and attempts to disarm the people before, even when "the people", especially the poorer people were being forced onto the dangerous frontier and subject to Indian attacks. Whether this played into the way the second amendment was worded I can't say, but it seems plausible to me. Also, I don't mean for these comments to necessarily support anti-gun control today. Just to point out some of the interesting historical context in which the second amendment came to be. Pfly (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ten Lost Tribes

Why is it said there are ten lost tribes when the tribes of Benjamin, Judah, Levi and (remnants of) Simeon and maybe even Ephraim and Manasseh, who migrated to Judah during the reign of Asa of Judah, survived after the Assyrian conquest of the Northern Kingdomof Israel? --170.140.105.14 (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you -- "ten lost tribes" is semi-sloppy counting, which counts Ephraim and Manasseh separately, ignores Simeon, and ignores half the tribe of Levi. However, it's traditional... AnonMoos (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Levites always lived in both kingdoms. But they're normally excluded from the counting of the tribes when it comes to territory, as they had none, the twelve tribes being actually thirteen when Joseph's sons are taken into consideration, each of whom had a share in the land. --Dweller (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

But 170.140.105.14 has a point, in that if you exclude Judah, Benjamin, and Simeon, then you can only get to ten by including Levi in the count, even though a large number of Levites lived in the southern kingdom. Anyway, probably significant remnants of Israelites remained in Samaria after 722 B.C., though they mixed with other groups, and few of them were willing to accept religious leadership from Jersualem... AnonMoos (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's my understanding:

• The "Twelve Tribes" was originally the twelve sons of Jacob, but when the Levites were set aside from receiving land and given their special status, they were replaced by dividing the Tribe of Joseph into that of his two sons: Ephraim and Manassah; thus the Levites were not normally counted among the "twelve tribes" when the territory of the Land of Israel was divided up.
• The actual assigned territory was never fully claimed, and the extent to which the territory of Israel as actually controlled by the Unified and later Divided Kingdoms never represented the territory which Scriptures had specifically assigned to the Tribes. IIRC, the Tribe of Dan never ousted the Philistines from their assigned land, and thus were forced instead to settle within the land of the Tribe of Naphtali in the are of the city of Dan. Also, though the Tribe of Simeon was assigned land within what later became the Kingdom of Judah they never took control of it; the land itself came under control of Judah instead; the Kingdom of Judah was thus limited to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. Those two tribes were thus the "unlost" tribes in the counting, the Ten Tribes that were lost then could be considered the balance.
• The term "ten lost tribes" may not have ever been meant to be taken literally; nor is there any evidence that the term was used in scripture, nor is there any evidence in scripture or historical record that the Northern Kingdom was ever completely depopulated. Thus, the "ten lost tribes" may not have been ten, and may not have been completely lost. My understanding is that the end of the Northern Kingdom by the Assyrians occured when the leadership was removed by the Assyrians, and some of the people from some tribes were deported and/or enslaved, though several tribes usually counted as "lost" were mostly spared in this regard. The "lost" tribes thus may have only been "lost" in the sense that they lost their cultural heritage and distinction as separate tribes, but the people themselves continued to live in the same land.
• Cultural distinctions within the Levant indicate that the "ten lost tribes" may have in part become the Samaritans; the northern Kingdom's capital was the City of Samaria and the land of Samaria itself formed the core of the Northern Kingdom.

Just some ideas. --Jayron32 14:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Contacting the Israeli Government

I have a question. I previously proposed the idea of holding a referendum on Arab East Jerusalem neighborhoods in the event of a final peace deal here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2012_August_8#East_Jerusalem_Arabs_and_Israel). What would be the best way for me to try contacting some prominent Israeli politicians and to share my proposal with them? I know that the chances might be low, considering that I am an ordinary person and a dual Israeli-U.S. citizen who has lived in the U.S. for the entire last decade (and longer), but I still want to try doing this considering that it appears that no one in the Israeli government (in this one and in all of the previous ones) has ever suggested a proposal similar to the one that I suggested. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's a list of current Israeli government officials: [10]. It doesn't include e-mail addresses, but you could do a Google search on each name and "email address". Of course, even if you send an e-mail, most likely it will just be read be a secretary, not the actual politician. (You could also do snail mail, if you prefer wasting postage.) StuRat (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

What's snail mail? Also, is there any way at all for an actual Israeli politician to hear my proposal? Futurist110 (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

"Snail mail" is using the postal system to deliver mail, written on paper, in envelopes, with stamps on them. StuRat (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I think that using e-mail would be better for me, though. Futurist110 (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, although you might have an old-fashioned politician who's more likely to read snail mail than e-mails. StuRat (talk) 05:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If we're talking about old-fashioned politicians, these politicians might also be less likely to speak English fluently. Futurist110 (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Futurist110, in your supposing that that the likes of your proposal have never before been considered by "[any]one in the Israeli government," is that based on your having particularly extensive and comprehensive sources of information? It would be responsible and effective on your part to start by identifying which particular governmental body - and not necessarily on the national level - deals with the issue of Israeli citizenship for Arab residents of East Jerusalem. For example, I searched for an office of Arab Affairs (e.g. for the Jerusalem Municipality), and read the following on the English-language blog of the Israel State Archives:

...the office of the Adviser on Arab Affairs [...] was a unit in the Prime Minister's Office from the early years of the state until the turn of the century when it was abolished. (The abolition reflected the understanding that the affairs of Israel's Arab citizens should be dealt with, like those of all other citizens, in each respective ministry, rather than by a separate one).

That ISA blog has this piece on the topic of ID cards for East Jerusalem Arabs. See also the websites of NGOs concerned with, for example Palestinian rights in Jerusalem that share your interest and would provide background information not available through more mainstream sources. People in the field are likely to know the answer to the question you posed here. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)'

In regards to my proposal, I studied the history of Israeli peace negotiations and peace proposals, as well as looked at Israeli news for the last six years. I have not found anyone proposing what I proposed. In regards to Israeli citizenship for the Arabs of East Jerusalem, the thing is that when it comes to peace proposals, only politicians are generally able to make serious proposals which could catch the attention of Israeli governments and peace negotiators. Thank you very much for these links about the affairs of Israel's Arab citizens. I will check them out in the future. In regards to background information, are these organizations genuinely able to get the attention of Israeli politicians? I think I've read before that Israel is trying to impose some restrictions on NGOs or something like that. Futurist110 (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, as a side note, I literally forgot all of my Hebrew after I came to the U.S. (in 2001--I was 8 back then). Therefore I would need to be able to contact someone in English. Also, in regards to politicians, I think that some politician(s) in Yair Lapid's new party (Yesh Atid) might be more interested in my proposal than the politicians in some other parties. Futurist110 (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Do district attorneys belong in the executive branch or the judicial branch?

Do district attorneys belong in the executive branch or the judicial branch? When I googled it there's an answers.com answer that's only one word long which isn't exactly helpful. The federal "version", United States Attorney, belong in DoJ and thus the executive branch; I'm asking whether this is also the case for their local counterparts.Dncsky (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

District attorneys represent the State and its interests, so they are not officials of the judicial branch per se. They are members of the Executive. They are still officers of the court, but that applies to defense attorneys as well. The idea behind the impartial judiciary is that Judges aren't beholden to any other party except the Law itself, so only the Judges represent the Judicial Branch of government, in U.S. constitutional theory. --Jayron32 14:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Dncsky (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

What is the phobia of not being able to speak

I would like to know the fear of not being able to talk/allowed to talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.112.182.181 (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Try List of phobias. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be considered one of the symptoms of social phobia (http://www.temple.edu/psychology/heimberg/documents/Jorstad-SteinHeimbergSocialPhobiaAnUpdateonTreatmentPsychiatricClinicsofNorthAmerica2009.pdf (page 652) and http://books.google.com/books?id=W1x4v5-WQSEC&pg=PA24&dq=%22+fear+of+being+unable+to+speak (page 24)). I couldn't find a name for it as a phobia on its own. 184.147.123.15 (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Glossophobia is in the list I indicated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Glossophobia is fear of public speaking, not the fear of NOT public speaking. 63.144.93.30 (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The OP didn't say he fears not speaking; he fears not being able to speak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The OP says "able/allowed" to talk, which might imply a fear of some form of "freezing up" stopping one from making utterances, but also suggests being retrained or muzzled by others. In either case 63.144.93.30 is corerect that thr OP is not talking about fear of speaking, but fear of being restrained from doing so, whether by internal or external forces. Paul B (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A phobia is an intense fear of something. Being unable to do something is a different thing. People have been known to do extraordinary things in the face of the most profound fears. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It should also be clarified that a phobia is an irrational fear of something: that is the fear itself does not reasonably derive from actual circumstances. The intense fear of being shot while sitting quietly in your house in a quiet, safe suburb would be a phobia. The intense fear of being shot while in the midst of a heated battle in a war zone would merely be prudent. --Jayron32 19:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Back to the question. The OP seems to be asking about the fear that you will try to talk, and then can't, or the fear of finding yourself at a loss for words, or something like that. That's probably a real phobia, but I'm not sure there's a specific name for it. It should be noted that the vast majority of "named" phobias are not real, recognized psychological conditions but are rather simply popular terms for fears or anxieties, some of which may not even meet the clinical definition of a phobia (c.f. Nomophobia.) That is, the OP's question may be about a real, clinical phobia, but it is unlikely to be a phobia with a clinically-recognized name. --Jayron32 20:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Princess of Orange

Why was Sophie of Württemberg considered The Princess of Orange from 1839 to 1849 when her husband was the heir apparent but the present Princess Máxima of the Netherlands is not? The argument that the title is reserved for a female heir apparent doesn't make sense since the Spanish monarchy also allow female succession but gives the title Princess of Asturias to both spouse and female heirs-apparent.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The answer is that The Netherlands is not Spain. The Monarchy of the Netherlands is not bound to follow rules established by the Monarchy of Spain. The rules currently state that the Princess of Orange title today can only be applied to the female heir apparent, and not to the wife of the male heir apparent. The Netherlands is well within their rights to declare that a rule. In the 1840s, the Netherlands had a different inheritance law, and did not allow females to be actual heirs apparent, merely heirs presumptive (as is the case in the UK today). Line of succession to the Dutch throne makes it clear that the situation in the 1840s was even more restrictive than that: Females could only inherit if there were literally zero qualified males able to inherit until 1887. From 1887-1983, the situation was for male preference primogeniture, but which allowed females to inherit if there was not a male within a certain degree of kinship (similar to the UK). Since 1983, the Netherlands succession law maintains strict gender-neutral primogeniture. Given the difference in the rules between 1840's and today, it is unsurprising that the rules governing the use of titles related to that succession have changed, and the fact that the rules in Spain are different is a non-starter: Spain has no say over what happens in the Netherlands. --Jayron32 20:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yet another question on Japanese culture

I am Japanese and I was once a hikikomori when I was 20 years old, I locked myself up in my own bedroom, tired of the pressure of society and spent all the time playing games and watching TV. A team of governmental psychologists and psychiatrists helped me out and I overcame that. My question is, in Western countries, do you have governmental free mental care like Japan in that sense?. Hope you understand me. My English is like hell. Thank. Kotjap (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

All medical care is free in the UK, including mental health care, because of the NHS, but not dental care. Dental care is free only if you are receiving state benefits or are under 18. Of course, it is not free if you go to a private institution. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

OP may want to check out Universal health coverage by country. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

In the United States there is only very rudimentary government mental health care at the moment. This may change under the Affordable Care Act; I'm not sure one way or the other (I haven't looked into the mental health provisions of the new law). Generally speaking US public mental health care was stripped down substantially in the 1980s. Frankly I doubt that the government here would give you the sort of treatment you received in Japan. If anything, they might commit you involuntarily to a mental institution, but that's not quite the same thing. Also, your English is completely understandable. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Is Queen Elizabeth II a Commander?

I saw her on the box of Northern Mali conflict with the flags of the UK and Canada. Is she a Commander? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotjap (talk • contribs) 21:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No, much like the Japanese emperor, the British monarch has no executive power. Rojomoke (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

British kings led armies in the middle ages, sometimes getting killed in the process. Was that option taken away abruptly, or was it a gradual transition? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The transition was in the 15th to 16th centuries. Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain and would have given his kingdom for a horse, while Elizabeth gave a stirring speech to the troops. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I always thought it was Richard III's father who Gave Battle in Vain, seeing as he didn't become king. Richard III was the last English king to die in battle; James IV was the last British monarch to do so, in 1513. At that time, Catherine of Aragon was ruling England as regent, and she rode out in armour to send the army on its way, but did not make the long journey north to the battlefield. But George II was the last British monarch to lead his troops into battle, at the Battle of Dettingen. But as noted below, British royal involvement in warfare continues to this day, and in 1942 cost the life of Prince George, Duke of Kent, the king's younger brother. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Like many of the Queen's powers, I suspect that this one is one that exists on paper, but which she cannot practically use. That is, she is, in name, the Commander-in-Chief of the British military, but unlike, say, the U.S. President, she cannot actually make any command decisions in practice. Like the rest of the Monarchy's powers, there was likely not a single event or law which specifically removed this power; just that over time as the democratic elements of the British constitution began to exert themselves, the Monarchy gradually stopped exercising that power until it just became practically impossible to do so. It's part of the legal fiction of the British constitution: the Parliament allows the Monarch to have any powers they want, so long as they are never put into use. --Jayron32 01:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. It occurs to me that both Will and Harry have participated in some degree of combat activities (Harry, especially) and may in fact be issuing orders. Not commanding an entire army, obviously - just commanding at whatever officer level they are; and not commanding as royals, but within the framework of their military ranks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Most males in the Royal Family serve in the Military in some capacity. Charles, Prince of Wales served in both the Air Force and Navy and commanded a ship for a while. Prince Andrew, Duke of York served in the Royal Navy as a Helicopter pilot and saw action during the Falklands War. Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex briefly served in the Royal Marines, but never made it through training. However, they don't normally receive special command duties outside of their military roles. --Jayron32 04:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

But some of them are Royal Colonels. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to the answers to your previous question.Dncsky (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes; particularly, our article Commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces and This BBC article. Alansplodge (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2

US Presidential Staff

I don't if this is right but Lincoln had only two men on his staff while he was president. In today's day and age, is it possible for the US president (if he desired so) to dismiss the bulk of his staff on his own accord like the secret services and live a more thrifty/normal life? --170.140.105.14 (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's right about Lincoln only having two men on his staff. Certainly not if you include the White House staff. I don't know about the legality of dismissing most of the staff, but there would be serious objections raised if he tried. For example, leaving himself vulnerable to kidnapping would not only endanger him, but the entire nation, as well. StuRat (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Barack Obama has two full time on call movie projectionists on his staff, in case he can't figure out how to play a DVD at 3am.[11] And no, I don't think he could possibly live a normal human life without them. μηδείς (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It is true that prior to the 20th century the U.S. presidents kept a much smaller personal staff. IIRC, many of the earliest Presidents were expected to pay for their entire White House staff out of their own pockets, which gave them a bit of incentive to keep things light, many of them probably kept a private secretary for correspondence and a valet for personal service, and maybe a cook and a scullery maid or something like that. But not much else. By the time of Lincoln, however, the staff had probably grown somewhat. The Federal Government funded permanent body guards for him, what with the Civil War and all. Still, when the first telephone was installed at the White House during the administration of Rutherford B. Hayes, if you called the White House, he answered it himself (not that many people had telephones at the time anyways, but still). Like all aspects of the U.S. government, the size of the White House staff grew greatly during the 20th century. --Jayron32 04:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

So the reference explaining why the White House staff necessarily grew through the 20th century, and the current president needs two full-time on-call movie projectionists is...Rutherford B. Hayes? μηδείς (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't answer the "why" question. I answered the "what" question, which is relates to what the history of the presidential staff size has been at various moments in history. The "Why" question is outside the scope of this desk. Making oblique and obtuse political commentary about the current situation by couching ones political opinions in the form of incredulous statements is also beyond the scope of this desk. --Jayron32 06:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Medeis, can you find a source that proves that claim other than the single source that seems to be repeated ad infinitum in Google searches? RNealK (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Meaning what by prove? The claim is made in as many reliable sources as you like. I am sure someone would have rebutted the available sources were they false. The White House itself chooses not to give any information about White House staff on its own website. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Every source I can find via Google just reiterates the National Review article, which doesn't provide any evidence. I've asked snopes for some evidence. RNealK (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That claim doesn't seem unreasonable, to me. Historically, Presidents would have needed to view some videos dealing with current events, in order to understand what was going on. A recent example would be the anti-Muslim movie clip which was blamed for protests at US embassies, and, initially, the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi. So, two projectionists (in case one was sick or otherwise unavailable) was not unreasonable. However, videos these days are more likely to be in digital format, and fewer skills are required to watch digital videos than to run a film projector, so, at some point, they should probably let those projectionists go and just assign some general tech guys to display videos for the President and staff. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Medeis, the article you linked to made no mention of playing DVD's so where did that come from? I would suspect that the projectionists are for the Family Theater. It has been part of the White House since Franklin D. Roosevelt was president (1942) and, given the pictures on that page, it has been used by several presidents since then. While the only one I see listed is Paul Fischer there must have been other projectionists over the years. Also the White House has been, since 1995, required to give Congress a list of staff which can be seen at http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/annual-records/2012 CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if the president watches many films on a reel. Perhaps he mostly watches blue rays instead of DVD's? My opinion is worthless, you'd have to go to the sources. μηδείς (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

[12] suggests Paul Fischer was the projectionist from 1953 to 1986. It doesn't mention if there was only one or if they were employed full time in the role. He's also mentioned in [13] which mentions it was redecorated by Laura Bush. I don't know who paid for that, per the same source during the Reagan years there was an upgrade funded by the movie studios and they also provide movies on request at a moments notice, I'm guessing for no charge. It sounds like no one would have wanted to watch a movie with Clinton so it may have been fortunate used his own theater rather then someone elses. And it seems at least under Paul Fischer the movies were fairly tame, Jimmy Carter was the only one to watch an X-rated movie with Midnight Cowboy although the earlier article suggests it wasn't X when Carter watched it anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like you're almost suggesting something salacious on the part of Clinton, Nil Einne. Midnight Cowboy was seen by millions of people at the cinema all over the world, and millions more on TV and DVD ever since. It was nominated for 6 Oscars and won 3, including Best Picture and Best Director. It won 6 BAFTAs. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Painting/painter identification

Any idea who painted this, or what (if anything) the painting's name is? I can't load the source page, and I'm not sure if the line in the description page, "Allegoria della vita umana", is the painting's title or simply a description of what it is. It's tiny because it might be NSFW, even though it's clearly a classic-style painting rather than pornography. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The file description page File:Cagnacci Allegoria.jpg gives the painter as Guido Cagnacci and the title as Allegoria della vita umana or "Allegory on Human Life". Putting "Allegoria della vita umana" into Google turns up plenty of sources which confirm both of these facts. --Jayron32 04:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting pic. The "halo" appears to be a coiled snake, which sends a bit of a mixed message. StuRat (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be an Ouroboros. Together with the hourglass, the picked flowers and of course the skull, it all seems to reference passing of time and is classical memento mori symbolism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the source link. Those who consider the painting NSFW might wish to see a revised version (still without Burqa). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if you're joking about the NSFW bit, but paintings from the historical past cannot possibly be NSFW. --Viennese Waltz 15:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it must be a joke to censor the eyes and navel, while leaving the breasts visible. StuRat (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow; I really wasn't paying attention to the description page; I'm sorry. I was still concerned about the potential for a large image of a topless woman, despite its obviously historical nature. Nyttend (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reason to believe a country will leave the Eurozone in the near future?

I still see lots of speculation in newspapers and so on about if the Euro will hold together and whether a 'Grexit' will happen, but I must admit I thought the crisis had died down. Is there any serious chance of a country leaving or even declaring it's intent to leave the Euro in the next months and year or so? 81.159.112.136 (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, we can't give predictions (see the header to the page). We've got no insight into what might happen, beyond what you can read in the papers. I suggest reading a range of serious news magazines. But they don't know, either. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

As a reference desk, the OP was probably expecting to be provided with references or links to the "range of serious news magazines" to which you refer. I'm not sure an admission of personal ignorance is helpful or even relevant. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

From the ref desk header: "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate". Quite straightforward, really. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Well then, depending on what languages the OP speaks, I would suggest keeping a close eye on the Financial Times, The Economist, anything by Timothy Garton Ash, Le Monde Diplomatique, Der Spiegel and all the German press, El Pais, La Stampa, and one or two of the main papers in Greece. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

That ban on predictions seems a bit overly broad. We certainly can provide predictions of solar eclipses, for example. It should probably say something to the effect of "rather than making predictions based on our own intuition, we will only repeat predictions listed in reliable sources". StuRat (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe predictions are OK on the science desk but not on the humanities desk? This one is a good example of a request for prediction that is impossible to respond to, unless the question is completely recast. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. A question phrased as "Do you, o oracle of the reference desk, foresee a Greek exit", is requesting an opinion. The present question has a header which begins "Is there any reason...", and the body of the question ends with a question which begins "Is there any chance..."? Both are perfectly reasonable questions which can be answered with solid references from serious analyticial pieces from, say, the FT or the Economist, as you say. Deliberately interpretating the question to be a request for personal opinion when it is not phrased as anything of the sorts is not helpful.

The caution at the start of the page to which User:Saddhiyama refers is, I think, relevant as much to questioners as it is to responders. If you worked at a reference desk in a library, would your response to the question above be "Oh, I don't know, don't ask me, what a silly question"? Or would it be "Here is what (little) I can find from reputable sources that show what reputable analysts are saying about this possibility"?

Personally I have not come across any recent articles in reputable publications that predict an exit, but others may have. I do not however blame this inability to answer the question on my part on the way the question is phrased. It is perfectly capable of being answered with reputable references. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK (FT, BBC, NYT) no-one is predicting an exit now, no. Though some still advocate it. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 18:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Would the U.S. support us?, I am concerned.

I'm a 55-year-old Japanese citizen and I am increasingly worried about the Senkaku Islands dispute even more since yesterday the PM said that we will defend the islands "at all costs". I have two sons, 20 and 24 year old, they are not in the military and here is not a draft but I don't know if it would be implemented in case of confrontation. What are the probabilities of confrontation? I love peace. The Japanese people love peace. We love the Chinese as brothers of Asia, yet they burn our flag. Kotjap (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This is, unfortunately, the sort of thing that the Ref Desk can't really answer. We are not a crystal ball and can't predict the future. However, I can tell you that the US military is shifting its long-term strategic position towards the Pacific, so it certainly seems likely that they're considering things like the outbreak of hostilities over the various territorial disputes in that part of the world. As for China-Japan relations... that's a long and complicated history with a lot of bad feelings and blame on both sides. — Lomn 21:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

We cannot predict the future, so we can't offer certainty. However, as an educated American who has closely followed international affairs for several decades, I cannot imagine the United States allowing itself to be pulled into war with China over the Senkakus. Nor, in the end, do I believe that Japan would defend those uninhabited rocks "at all costs". I think the most likely outcome, if outright war seemed in the offing, would be for John Kerry to fly immediately to Tokyo and then to Beijing and to negotiate a compromise that would avoid a military conflict while allowing both sides to save face. Marco polo (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Marco, as we're currently discussing on the Talk page, we should not be offering personal commentary like what you've just given ("I cannot imagine", "I do not believe", "I think" etc). If you can find a published commentary in a reputable source that says more or less what you just said, you can provide a link to it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

As the article says it is included in the US defence agreement with Japan. If China actually occupied the islands they would be considered enemies of the United States and from past experience it is very hard to change that status - it requires an abject apology or a revolution which changes their government. Dmcq (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The possibility of China and Japan going to war over the islands is so infinitesimally tiny that it's not worth losing sleep over. It's more likely that you'll be struck by lightning more than seven times or that Kim Kardashian and Lindsay Lohan will jointly come up with a theory of everything. The Japanese Prime Minister is just posturing. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 11

I listened to the final minutes of the call by flight attendant Betty Ong to American Airlines Emergency Line and she said that she was sat at jump seat 3R. Can anybody tell me where on this map is jump seat 3R? Thank. Kotjap (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Jump seats on airliners are typically at the very front or back of the cabin, in the galley areas or otherwise separated from passenger seats. At a guess, "R" in this case means "rear", and would put 3R at the far right end of the linked image. I guess this in part because I expect a flight attendant would have had an easier time making a call from the rear of the airplane, away from where the hijackers were operating. — Lomn 21:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The article Betty Ong has a transcript of the call. In it she says

Betty Ong: I'm, I'm sitting in the back somebody's coming back from business....we can't even get up to business class right now because nobody can breathe.

So Lomn's supposition is correct -- she was in the back. Also, the seating map gives an alphabetized list of people on board and their seat number -- she and two other people are listed as being in 27C. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Manu Sarren

Can it be true that Manu Sareen is not the first Danish minister of different ethnic origins but that it was Isi Foighel? --80.161.143.239 (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably not, although it depends what you mean by 'different ethnic origins'. Manu Sareen is quite clearly not ethnically Danish. Isi Foighel was born in Chemnitz, Germany, to Jewish parents. However, Germans are very close relations to the Danes, so it's difficult to say that he is of 'different ethnic origins' by virtue of being German. If we say that his ethnicity is 'Jewish', there was a previous Jewish Danish politician in Edvard Brandes. In summary; it may be true that Manu Sareen is the first 'non-white' Danish minister (whatever that means), but he is not the first born outside Denmark. Isi Foighel may have been the first non-Danish Christian minister, but was not the first Danish Jewish politician. Like most European countries and cultures, Denmark is a fascinating melting pot of many different origins, races and religions, and has been for many centuries. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Price of Victory

It has been said by a historian that during the American Civil War the Federal Government won the war with one arm tied behing it's back. Can this be said of America's participation in World War 2? Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonQ.2 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC) GordonQ.2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonQ.2 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't do homework. The question sounds like homework. Where did it come from? Can you link to some independent source that makes this claim? μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Which bit do you want explained? Do you understand what the question is asking you to do? What do you think the answer is? ---- _nonsense ferret 23:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, I Googled the whole question and found: Shelby Foote pronounced the Confederate bid for independence doomed from the start. "I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back," observed Foote. If the Confederacy ever had come close to winning on the battlefield, "the North simply would have brought that other arm out from behind its back. I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that war."[14] Alansplodge (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

February 3

Nuclear Weapons Stockpiles by Country in 2020

I previously saw a report released by the U.S. govt. in 1999 which projected the nuclear weapons stockpiles for each country in 2020. However, I cannot find this table from this report right now. Can someone please help me out? Also, if anyone knows of some other nuclear weapons stockpiles by country projections for the future, please let me know as well. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the table that I was looking for, I finally found it here--http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/ Futurist110 (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That prediction about 2020 was made in 1999 so I am not sure how well I would trust it to reflect reality. Rmhermen (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you but this info could still be useful when there are no more recent projections available. Looking back 13-14 years later, these predictions might be pretty accurate when it comes to some countries, though. Futurist110 (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hikikomoris again

I am Japanese and that's why I ask on Japanese culture. According to our own article on hikikomori, there may be over one million hikikomoris in Japan. My question is, what will come about when these young people grow older and lose their parents? Thank. Kotjap (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have any way of speculating on future events in this way. We simply don't know what will happen in the future, and this reference desk isn't really the proper venue for such discussions. --Jayron32 02:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

When we have mentally ill people in the US unable to live on their own, one of several things happens when their caregivers die:

1) They learn to live on their own after all.

2) They live in a group home or some other state-assisted living arrangement.

3) They become homeless.

The general recommendation seems to be to transition them to a group home before the last caregiver dies, to avoid the third possibility. StuRat (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Conservative cities in Arab World

Sidon, Lebanon and Benghazi, Libya claimed they are conservative or more than other any other cities in their respective nations in the Arab World. What other cities in Arab World, claimed they are conservative or more, regardless it is religious conservative or social conservative, in their respective nations?--Donmust90 (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Not too sure what "conservative" means in this context, or whether it can mean the same thing for widely-separated locales, but much of Beirut has had a reputation of definitely not strictly adhering to traditional/historical Arab-Muslim social constraints... AnonMoos (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, we have to toss in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Not too many topless bars there. StuRat (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Is the Chinese Empire older than the Persian empire?

Is the Chinese Empire older than the Persian empire? Venustar84 (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you read our articles on the history of China and the history of Persia? The answer will depend on what you define as the starting point of each empire. For example, the Medean Empire predates "Imperial China" by about 400 years, but is itself predated by over a millennium of Chinese dynasties. — Lomn 03:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) There were several Persian Empires and Chinese Empires. The Achaemenid Persian Empire dates to about 550 BCE, while the Qin Dynasty in China dates to 221 BCE. So, if you compare those, the Persian is the older. StuRat (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes if you go by earliest foundation dates (Cyrus the great in 550 B.C. vs. the traditional dates of the Yellow emperor, or Xia/Shang/Zhou dynasties). Possibly not, if Cyrus the great is set alongside the date of the first Chinese ruler who is historically known to have ruled a consolidated empire spread over a wide area, which was in 221 B.C. AnonMoos (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

red state to the east

[15]

The caption is very small in this photo. Does it say "State of Bengal" for the state to the right?Curb Chain (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

On high magnification it's West Bengal. Rojomoke (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"he is infact better than remo"

who is remo?Curb Chain (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Likely Remo Fernandes. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Superdelegate

How could I become a superdelegate for the Democratic National Convention without being an elected official? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 11:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Have the sitting Vice President somehow resign, get the President to appoint you (with the consent of the House and Senate), then wait until your term ends. Ta-dah you're now a superdelegate without ever having been elected to any office. User:SamUK 14:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not necessary to be an elected official, you just need your state party to appoint you to one of the few superdelegate positions. But if you need to ask, you probably don't have the influence and the kind of friends to get it done. Rmhermen (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

how to get spies out of your life

So, this is a purely hypothetical question! I'm just asking out of curiosity. The question is, let's say that these bored and overpaid psychopaths, who really have nothing constructive to do with their time (usually since high school, where they made the mistake of going down IT-related fields instead of the proper study of mankind: the humanities). So, one of them, out of boredom, is in your life for whatever reason with a totally bogus story. Like, they're this hockey star - and they can't even skate.

So, this is just the premise. The question is, how do you get these people OUT of your life, to leave you alone? I don't care about their affiliation or whether they are are just liars or delusional, etc. The question is just: how do you get them out of your life?

This is just a hypothetical question, and there is no information on any motivations, etc. I just think that people who aren't genuine, and bored enough to concoct all sorts of stories and do something for different reasons from what they state, might be someone you want out of your life. So, in this hypothetical situation, how would you achieve it? --Quikcq (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we have an article on that subject. Perhaps someone else knows of an article that deal with this. Personally I'd just google for something like 'getting rid of jerks' or ask a friend. This is not the right sort of place for advice like that and we're not supposed to give personal opinions. Besides which I get the feeling you would think a large proportion of the editors here were creeps if you knew them. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I've always fancied finding myself a nice wilderness location and building a log cabin and living out my life as a hermit ---- _nonsense ferret 15:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Um. I do hope you're no good at maths ;-) Dmcq (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

well 2 and 2 make 4 or at least that's what THEY want us to think :) ---- _nonsense ferret 14:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

People are "in" your life because you choose to associate with them even despite their lack of skating prowess. If that's not the case, then what you have here is stalking; our article should mention laws against it in different countries, and related counter-measures. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You are not really answering my question, it's certainly not about "jerks", and I know a lot of people like Wikipedia editors and don't consider them "spies". My question is different. It's about someone with stupid affiliations who has built up a shallow lie and "professionally" think it's their job to just hang out under their cover and do, whatever, I don't even know what. So, while we might not have an article on it, I am sure we can come up with references for how to get these people to leave a situation. For example: should you confront them? should you allude to the fact that you know all this about them and would appreciate if they just took their cover elsewhere? should you guilt-trip them into being more normal human beings? Etc etc etc. Basically, although the situation is hypothetical, I am sure there is real-world advice on how to get people with stupid covers that don't convince anyone who's paying attention, to stop playing you for a fool. If nothing else, they are incompetent at their supposed cover and are a hindrance for that reason alone. I don't have any ideological objection, I just think these people are a waste of time. How do you get them out of your life? Quikcq (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Your question is not specific enough for anyone to answer, and is impossible to answer as a generalized hypothetical. Are you saying that you are a hockey coach, and someone has approached you pretending to be a star hockey player, but you suspect the person doesn't know how to play hockey, and want to determine her qualifications before adding her to your hockey team? If so, I would suggest having her play in a practice match, or asking her to perform some key hockey skills in front of you. If it turns out that she does not in fact know how to play hockey, you will have to decide whether to accept her and train her, or reject her, and you'll have to decide whether the fact that she lied about her skills is important to your choice. If you are asking a different question, it won't be possible for anyone to answer the question until after you have asked it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't give personal advice, but you might find assertiveness a useful approach. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't more specific. The point is they already failed it. For example, you have a movie set and the star's hairdresser pretends to be this flamboyant gay kind of dumb guy, who supposedly is illiterate (can only sound words out slowly). but none of that is true, they have advanced degrees and read and write well and quickly, and are either writing tabloid articles about the star, or working for the star's competition (agent), or there to make sure the film doesn't get made so that another studio can buy the rights, etc etc. It doesn't really matter what they're there actually to do - and I won't speculate. The hypothetical is that they completely bomb their 'cover story'. (Again, for example they put on this act about being illiterate, but you catch them leafing through an issue of the journal Daedalus and penning some intelligent questions to a contributing professor.) That's kind of a silly example, granted, but the point is that you want them to just go away. You don't need someone who pretends to be this illiterate pushover who is really very sophisticated and has whatever hidden motives. The question is, if we assume that the above is true, then what is the ACTUAL way to achieve your objective of getting this guy to fucking beat it. Quikcq (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

What the assertiveness approach implies is that you start by making it clear what you need to happen. Next time the person contacts you, say "Please do not contact me again". That might be sufficient. If someone keeps contacting you when you have made it very clear that you don't want that contact, that's stalking and you might need to go to the police. But, honestly, there are so many variables in real life that there's not much else we can say. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Judith, you've misunderstood me. The person doesn't "contact" me or bother me or stalk me. Also this is a hypothetical. Hypothetically, the person is just a coworker, or a consultant, or a delivery guy, or a hairdresser, or an assistant, or whatever, completely "normal". They're not bothering me, and if they were what they were claiming I would have no problem. The hypothetical is that they are *not* what they're claiming, are incompetent at their covers, and generally lower the status of the world by not contributing anything but intelligence work (or god only knows what) to it. I mean, imagine there's a hairdresser, but he never actually does hairdressing, he just hangs around on set pretending to be illiterate. Meanwhile he's reading and writing complex articles on the sly, and are just totally putting on a deep cover for God only knows what reason. The point is, I want them to stop, just stop. Go away and do that somewhere else. How, specifically, should I do this? Quikcq (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the top of the page note that it says "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." Please respect that and go somewhere else more suitable. I pointed out a google query you could use or you can ask your friends. Dmcq (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, there must be references for this. I'm asking for some. Here is an example of a query that does not work:

http://www.google.com/search?q=espionage+tradecraft+getting+an+agent+to+take+their+cover+story+elsewhere

So, I'm not really good enough with Google. I would like references to actual literature and what does work. A Google query that you suggest that has results that are relevant would also work. I appreciate any information the reference desk might be able to reference. Quikcq (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Speaking purely personally, I have little clue what you are talking about. A hairdresser claiming to be illiterate and writing articles???? There can be no simple answer because each case would be different. If someone claims to be something they are not, you can just ignore it, or you can embarrass them by exposing their lies to others. If they are harrassing you with their "spying", or are telling tales on you in some way you can either make that plain to others or contact relevant authorities if there is slander, libel or stalking. Paul B (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Right. I was super-specific: my whole question is about professional spies, i.e. from the world of espionage. None of us here would have any direct experience, hence the request for references. Quikcq (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you should write to Dear Abby, or maybe to the advice columnist in Reader's Digest, as they deal with this kind of question from time to time. Namely, the question, "This guy's bugging me. How do I get him to stop?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, like others here you do not notice that 'the guy' does not exist, as the question is hypothetical, and even in the hypothetical question he isn't bothering me! It's just a question about espionage agents. It's only hypothetical - I have no experience with this. Quikcq (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

So your question is: I suspect someone is a spy, what should I do? Is that right? If so, the most obvious course is to ignore it, because you could so easily be mistaken. Other options are to confront the spy or to report them to the authorities. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really, in two respects. It's not a suspicion, it's really quite obvious, and secondly I know what I would like - I want them to beat it. I don't want them to think there is any other way to resolve the situation - just leave (us) normal people alone. Quikcq (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

When spies in someone's life aren't hypothetical, situations like this are possible. "It wasn't just that someone lied to me, it was that there was a whole team of secret people digging away at my life - and personally for me it is very important to know how deeply they were intruding into my private space," she says. "These shadowy figures were presumably making decisions about my dinner dates and whether or not I was going to spend the night with my boyfriend, reading emails, listening to phone calls - deeply personal stuff." This seems somewhat dissimilar to the hypothetical scenario presented in the OP's question, though, because the "cover story" was sufficiently well presented that the spy was able to maintain his cover for seven years. Anyway, in this case legal action was subsequently taken by some of the people involved; and the problem of the spy was dealt with by the spy himself offering to give evidence in court in favour of the people that he was previously paid to spy on.[16] Hope this helps. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

In the situation that you described, where the "hairdresser" might be a spy, a journalist or on a mission to damage the company, I suppose any larger company has someone in charge of security. If they are made aware of the situation they might be able to have the person fired. Sjö (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Would this solution also have to consider that the "spy" might get upset and irrational toward the person who doesn't want them around? Because that seems to be an underlying aspect of your issue: that you are worried that the person will react unfavorably to your wishes.165.212.189.187 (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"his false identity did not stand up to scrutiny" seems closer to how the OP describes their experience of the alleged spy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Number of planes on 9/11

Reference note 1 in Betty Ong says that National Public Radio said on September 10, 2004:

"Betty Ong, a Chinese-American flight attendant for American Airlines, may have saved untold numbers of lives by telling emergency personnel on the ground what was happening aboard flight 11 on Sept. 11, 2001. Her call led to air traffic controllers landing every plane flying over U.S. airspace. ..."

This was said three years after 9/11/01, so enough time had passed for a lot of information to have been collected in retrospect. My question is: How is it that she may have saved untold numbers of lives? Three of the planes crashed into their targets. The other one was crashed when passengers revolted because they heard about the other hijacked planes being crashed into their targets.

So: is this NPR report implying that there may have been other planes that had hijackers on board but which landed before the hijackers could act? Do we know anything about this? Duoduoduo (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Just the four planes were hijacked on 9/11. My guess is that the NPR reporter is sensationalizing the story a bit, or perhaps just used poor wording. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I know just four were hijacked. I asked if any incipient hijackings were thwarted by the plane landing before they acted, and whether we know anything about this. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) They may have been implying that, but we don't have any indication that was true. Also, the passengers who revolted did so because they knew the plan was to crash the plane in any event, and Betty's info may have contributed to their knowledge, if any of them were in contact with authorities by cell phone, who had in turn gotten their info from Betty. Thus, the people at the target of that plane (the White House ?) may have been saved. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No, Betty's info didn't contribute to their knowledge. The passengers knew from talking with their loved ones that some planes had already been crashed into buildings. Just knowing that other planes had been hijacked wouldn't have given them any info they didn't already know, since they knew they had been hijacked. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I want to know why the fact that she's a Chinese-American is at all relevant to anything. Had she been Bertha Smith of pure anglo stock, would she have been described as anything other than "a flight attendant"? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

How is it relevant that it's American Airlines, rather than Alaska Airlines? Or for that matter, that it happened on Flight 11, rather than Flight 10? The job of a news network is to disseminate information. As long as that information is true, you have no valid complaints against it, regardless of whether you personally find the information interesting. --140.180.247.198 (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

According to the section "Legacy" in the article about her, it's the Chinese-American community in San Francisco that focused on the fact that she was Chinese-American. Others may have picked up on that because her last name is sufficiently uncommon in America that people might wonder if she was an American or not. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Her last name is not a common Chinese one, either. I'm a native Chinese speaker, and I certainly wouldn't have guessed she was Chinese from her name. --140.180.247.198 (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm part Chinese although don't speak Chinese but grew up in Malaysia and I would have guessed she might be Chinese from her surname. I knew a few people with that surname and it is a common enough surname in Malaysia I doubt many people there wouldn't recognise it. Are you sure this is not the same among the Chinese American community in San Francisco?

Edit: See also Ong (surname) which say it is the fifth most common surname in Singapore among the Chinese. It also give some statistics for the US, these may seem fairly obscure given the numbers but remember these include the large number of non Chinese surnames. The article confirms two things I expected but didn't mention since I wasn't sure enough to mention, number 1 is that it is a Hokkien romanisation so is more likely to be recognised by those coming from communities where Hokkien is more common. And this also implies if by native speaker you mean you grew up in China and only came to the US recently you may be even less familiar as I expect your experience with such romanisations is limited. Number two when combined with Ong, it only seems to be most common among Chinese with a little bit among the Laotian community, so if you recognise it as anything you're likely to recognise it as Chinese or at least East/SE Asian. There is only one person whose surname did not come from that direction listed. (Although Ong's Hat, New Jersey suggests it was common in one subcommunity Pine Barrens (New Jersey) settlers.)

Edit 2: An interesting point, if you search for 'walter j ong surname origin' or something similar you'll find someone saying his surname was not Asian [17] and the person saying this doesn't seem to come from South East Asia, although it was after September 11 which may have had an influence. (For those interested, there's more on the origins of his surname here [18].) One thing that remains unclear to me is how common Hokkien is in the US and in particular San Francisco. Hokkien dialect suggests there is usage in the US, but doesn't mention where, Hoklo people doesn't mention the US at all. Chinatown, San Francisco confirms Cantonese predominates there but doesn't mention anything about Hokkien which may suggest it has no influence but not necessarily. Of course dialects aside, it also depends on how common people who took on such romanisations are. I originally mentioned Taiwanese as well as China but decided to remove it because of course Hokkien is common in Taiwan. However there are very few Taiwanese listed in the page, and my impression is the romanisation is not so common among Taiwanese anymore due to government policy (e.g. suppression of Pe̍h-ōe-jī) and other reasons like the fact many won't have a preferred romanisation unlike in say Singapore, Malaysia and probably the Philippines. I grew up in KL which is an area Cantonese predominates, but of course given the percentage of Hoklo people in Malaysia there's still enough influence that it's something you're very likely to encounter in personal life (i.e. not just the media).

Nil Einne (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

To answer the OP's question, if there had been any other planes which were discovered to have been about to be hijacked before they were all downed, I believe this would have been major news, too, and we would have already known about it by now. The official report is that there were four planes, with a total of 19 (+1) hijackers (including one or more who managed to get on the plane without passports, apparently, because they were left in a car in the car park of the airport (and later turned up alive in the Middle East), and one whose passport was discovered in the rubble of the WTC, despite the high temperatures which vaporised everything else burnable on the plane and brought the buildings down). If more potential hijackings that day had been discovered, it would have made world news. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Very true, it would have been major news. I've read the early chapters of the 9/11 Commission Report, which detail the events of 9/11 and the aftermath, and I can't recall the slightest mention either of another plane, nor of Betty Ong saving lives. I'm also not sure what her call had to do with the landing of planes. The nationwide groundstop did not occur until 9:25, and the order to land all planes at the nearest airport came at 9:42, after all but the last plane (United 93) had crashed. IBE (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

blue eye preference

I'm so keen on blue eyes that I refuse to consider brown-eyed men as potential partners because I don't want to have brown-eyed children. Is this unusual/insane? 92.13.78.125 (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Blue eyes is a recessive characteristic, unless you also have blue eyes there is no guarantee any children will have blue eyes. Yes it is unusual and insane but then again anything to do with sex is insane so I wouldn't be too worried about it. Dmcq (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have blue eyes, and I understand the pattern of inheritance. 92.13.78.125 (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It is apparently common for heterosexual males with blue eyes to seek blue-eyed women. See this article and these search results. It is not entirely comparable, though, unless it is possible for you not to be certain that your child is your biological child. Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me more of a wind-up than a genuine request for information - the reference desk is here principally for research questions rather than lifestyle opinions ---- _nonsense ferret 18:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There is such a thing as sexual selection and its potent enough to cause animals to develop non-adaptive traits such as bright colors and cumbersome appendages. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a wind-up. I'm wondering if it's common enough that I could tell brown-eyed men the truth about why I'm not interested in them, or if it would be considered truly offensive. Do most people not care about eye colour? 92.13.78.125 (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

So if Ashton Kutcher, George Clooney, Will Smith, Orlando Bloom, Justin Bieber, Justin Timberlake, Denzel Washington or David Beckham were to try to hit on you, you'd just brush them off? Yes, I'm sure many people would consider you certifiable. And yes, it would reflect badly on you if you told them why. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. But if I want my children to have a certain characteristic (that's blue eyes) in the same way that others might want their children to be tall, athletic, or smart, then all those men you've listed, though otherwise "fit", aren't biologically compatible with me. How is that necessarily more contemptible than "you're too short" or "you're too dumb" or "you haven't achieved enough in life"? 92.13.78.125 (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if most people do or don't care very much about it. I don't think there is anything bad about preferring blue to brown eyes. Brown is generally considered a rather dull colour, and, yes, blue is brighter and more exciting. But if you are really going to choose or reject people on such grounds, bear in mind you could be your losing your soul mate over something superficial. Surely your own happiness with the right person should come first. Paul B (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well as our article mentions there are some medical implications of having lighter colour eyes including blue (however also possibly some for dark brown eyes). Historically there was also claims of a difference in reaction times, but this doesn't seem to be well supported [19] [20]. However I do agree with you it's the OP choice. Some people will be offended, but so will people with the other things, which if anything are likely to be more offensive. I don't know if I entirely agree that you shouldn't mention them either. If anything I suspect many would prefer it particularly for something like this. In fact it's probably better to mention them if they're less common and genetic, as the most likely conclusion would be 'it's not something I should worry about' compared to a common preference or just letting the person involved thinking perhaps they did something wrong. They may think lesser of the OP but if the OP wants to have such preferences they should be willing to accept people may think less then them because of those preferences. Nil Einne (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's just as demeaning to explicitly state those other objections. Think them if you want, but don't offend people by telling them. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The word "love" hasn't raised its ugly head yet. Isn't that mainly why people marry each other? And isn't love about our feelings for the other for who they are, despite their obvious flaws and failings and inadequacies and unticked boxes? Sure it's good to dream about the perfect mate and the perfect children, but if you and he make your selection of each other based solely on your pre-determined criteria but still regard it as a love match, then yes, that would be insane. Not that I'm qualified to diagnose mental illness, but it sounds pretty loopy to me. All I know is that you were my friend and we were having coffee and you told me about this fantastic guy you've met and wanted to marry, and I asked you about him, and you told me your main reason was that he has blue eyes, I'd tell you to get over it. Sure, have some "fun" with him, but as for a lifetime commitment (for that is what marriage is) based solely on the fact that he has blue eyes ... well, think twice (plus). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You've made it rather backwards, in that you imply every blue-eyed male is a potential mate solely on their eye colour. I'm not THAT bad. Of course all of the necessary ingredients for love would be in place before I consider them as a mate. All I'm saying is that I filter potential mates through the same lens as almost every other female, but I add "blue eyes" as a prerequisite. I'm not sure how this is necessarily less demeaning than not giving a chance to someone smaller than me (which is a very typical female requirement). Of course if I actually did fall in love with someone with brown eyes it probably wouldn't matter. But for as long as I'm in the artificial world of dating, it counts for something. 92.13.78.125 (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Airports

everyone knows that it is illegal to take weapons, knives and other potentially dangerous sharp objects in an airport. but it is only illegal, after reached through the scanner and on the plane, or it must be good to have this kind of thing with the airport, or outside the airport if you not go on the plane? --80.161.143.239 (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Which country? I have taken two knives (on two separate occasions) so long as I explained why they were in my luggage. One (in Greece) was in my pocket at the time (I'd forgotten about it), and they insisted that I put it in my cargo baggage. The other (in Germany) was a very small Swiss-Army knife like thing, which I had in my backpack. I explained it was a bottle-opener. Meanwhile, the Korean lady on the next desk had her implement confiscated, which was a sort of fishing-rod, with lots of attachments, but she couldn't explain what it was, so she had to leave it. Different airports in different countries have different rules, and many depend on the staff's mood at the time. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

USA. --80.161.143.239 (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If you're legally allowed to carry it out in public, you can legally carry it to an airport. It's only once you get to the security checkpoint that you will have trouble. For example, I normally have a Swiss Army knife with me. When I go to pick someone up at the airport, I can bring it in with no problem. If I try to get on a plane with it, it has to be in my checked baggage or they'll tell me to throw it away when I go through security. This actually happened with a folding fork, spoon, knife thing that I kept in my bag but had forgotten to take out when going to the airport. Dismas|^(talk) 21:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, did you hear about the attempted hijacking in Warsaw? The guy couldn't bring a knife aboard, so he threatened the stewardess with a spoon. As you might imagine, the incident did not end well for the would-be hijacker. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus of the effects and impacts of the Affordable Care Act after full implementation

I still haven't formed an opinion on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) yet and won't do so until after its full implementation because I haven't read the bill, Republicans have been saying one thing about it and Democrats another thing, Republicans would say look this what it says in the bill and Democrats would say no this is what it actually says in the bill and vise versa, and the Affordable Care Act hasn’t been fully implemented yet. So for me, this is like a “let’s wait and see” game. So, I got 2 questions about this “let’s wait and see” game.

After the Affordable Care Act becomes fully implemented on January 1, 2014, how many days, weeks, or months would it take before there is enough consensus on both sides of the aisle about whether Republicans or Democrats have been right all along about its effects and impacts on things like the economy, healthcare costs, Medicare and Medicate, etc?

Let’s say that a general consensus arises that the Affordable Care Act is unsuccessful, which would make the Republicans look vindicated since they are the ones who have been opposed to it. Would the Affordable Care Act be repealed as easily as any other law if enough support arises for that to happen or would it be a law that would be very difficult if not impossible to repeal based on whatever the nature and structure of the law is even if enough support arises in Washington for repeal? Willminator (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There are two problems with answering your query. The first is that you don't actually specify the "effects" you're interested in. As with any complex piece of legislation, there are nearly unlimited possible effects. For example, the ACA could have long-term impacts on the size of the federal budget, the cost of health insurance, the quality of healthcare, the treatment of rare illnesses, overall infant mortality, and the average taxpayers changed share of the tax burden, just to list a few out of many. Each of those effects will have hugely different time horizons before one can determine what the legislation will do. The second is that what one defines as "success" or "failure" is very much in the eye of the beholder in most cases. Would lowering healthcare costs, but a decrease in healthcare quality, be considered a success or a failure? What if costs lowered by 20% and quality only decreased by 5%? What about 100% and 10%? And so on. There aren't objective goal posts here. Even if costs went down by a huge amount and quality of care went up, there will be some who (for whatever reasons) will be happy to find fault in it. (I'm not just blaming Republicans here, mind you. Everyone's a critic, these days, and there is always a lot to critique.)

This isn't to say that people on the whole can't judge something to be a success or a failure. It's that the question of whether people judge something a success or a failure is a complicated social metric, not something that can be pinned to a date and a time after the effect, because it isn't actually something that directly corresponds with any kind of obvious objective metric. Sometimes the notion that a policy is a failure happens all at once — e.g. the way the Tet Offensive was interpreted as meaning that the Vietnam War was destined to fail — and sometimes it is a gradual thing. Sometimes it is keyed to some obvious number, sometimes it is not. To make the analogy clear, we are still debating, decades later, whether the New Deal was a success or a failure. Even measuring its effects on the Great Depression is a non-trivial question, and then putting a value judgment on that measurement always verges into subjective assessment. And the debates that the policy wonks and economists have over it probably have almost nothing to do with what the general public thinks about it, which is what matters for the polls and ballot boxes.

So — it's a good question. It's just that there isn't any sort of obvious answer, at least not ahead of time. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that Democrats will find it to be a success and Republicans will find it to be a failure, because they will put emphasis on different criteria, just as they did during the pre-passage debate. Democrats will still like it because it makes insurance accessible to people who could not previously get it. Republicans will still hate it because they will still see it as governmental intrusion. Look at Medicare (US government-provided health insurance for old people) -- it's been around for close to 50 years and Democrats still love it and a lot of Republicans want to privatize it. It will be the same with the ACA assuming it is still around in 50 years. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Who is the FTSE 100 holdout against the Big 4 Auditors?

Is is a fact occasionally reported by the British press that 99 of the 100 companies making up the FTSE 100 are audited by just 4 companies (PWC, Deloitte, E&Y, KPMG). The way this has been reported leads me to believe that it is the same one company which is the exception, so I started wondering: Who is it? I'd also be interested in why they've chosen to use someone else, though I recognise that may be less easily available information. Many thanks! 81.159.112.136 (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, found it after some better Googling. It is Randgold Resources, a South African mining company. They are audited by BDO, and have been for some time - they just only entered the FTSE 100 recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.112.136 (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing the answer when you found it - that's a great bit of trivia! --Tango (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

February 4

Holocaust

Hi I have a few questions regarding the Holocaust and want to thank you in advance for offering your perspectives.

• Immediately after the outbreak of the war, wouldn't the Jewish people of Poland have had an idea that they were now in an extremely precarious position? I mean, surely they must have read newspapers about how the Jewish people in Germany, Austria and the Sudetenland were being persecuted both via the law and through physical violence. I suppose what I don't understand is why more Jews didn't make prior arrangements to try to conceal themselves, i.e. by changing their names, removing mezuzahs from their doors or by just going on the run or altering their appearance so that they appeared less obviously Jewish. It seems that the vast majority of Jewish Poles didn't really do much to avoid falling into the trap.

• Have any economists ever tried to calculate the total value of all of the assets expropriated from the Jews; for example, property, artwork, furniture, silver, clothes etc. Also, when the Germans paid restitution to the state of Israel, was it a fixed price for each victim.

Thanks very much for for taking the time to answer my questions. The first question is of particular interest to me because to me it just beggars belief. --Andrew 00:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There was nowhere they could go. Soviet Russia was occupying Eastern Poland by Sept. 17th, 1939. Czechoslovakia to the south was already in German hands. A mass exodus would have been impossible. Plus, the local Poles knew who they were. Poland was also deeply anti-semitic before and after the war. See History of the Jews in Poland and [[21]]. Going on the run would not be an option, as most had families with young children to look after. What is 'obviously Jewish' in terms of appearance? Many were blonde and blue-eyed Ashkenazis. Sure, they could change their clothes, but the local people knew them intimately. Moving to a new part of Poland where people did not know you would have been very difficult, as accommodation and work would have been difficult to find in the middle of an invasion. And changing your names would probably have been treated with suspicion by the local authorities in the middle of a war. People had ID papers. To change the name, they would have to go to the authorities to apply for a change of name in order to get new ID papers. Simply doing that would reveal you to the authorities as being Jewish, so that would be pointless. There was not much they could do, except hope the war would end soon, with their families intact. The only Jews who could get out, were ones who left before the war, except for a few with connections. As for the second question, I cannot find any information on that. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Poland treated the Jews harsher than the Nazis especially with rare pogroms. The Nazis didn't start the Final Solution until 1942 although there were many pogroms before then.
Sleigh (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Many of them lived in separate towns (shtetls), had little cash, spoke a different language, went to a different religious building to worship (and register life events), socialized with a different group. None of which is conducive to escape or hiding, even if they knew enough about what was happening elsewhere and predicted correctly that their land would be the next target. Rmhermen (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to add a little bit that's maybe already obvious, but many Jews did escape occupied Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Germany. But getting travel documents was difficult. The full extent of the Nazi's plans with occupation was perhaps unknown to the wider public. I think it's a really good OP question. My hunch is that most people didn't recognize the full extent to which the Nazi's were willing to go, and that the burden of leaving one's home, both legally and practically, was a large impediment. Shadowjams (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Very true. I visited Dachau in 2011, and we were shown a film about what was going on there during the war. After it was liberated, the local townspeople were invited in to see what had been going on there. There were women crying and fainting at the sight of piles of unburied bodies who had been beaten to death for various 'reasons', most notably in the showers. They hadn't known what was going on. Some certainly did know something - after all, they could see the passing transport trains carrying Jewish prisoners trying to get to the little tiny windows in these cattle trucks to get some air as they were so overpacked, but not the actual extent of it all. As I said above, some Jews did manage to escape being sent to the camps, by either having connections, or the money to bribe an official who would turn a blind eye. The journey out, however, was hazardous. Do you try your luck by staying and facing something you do not know much about, or do you take your family on a hazardous journey? That was the decision facing them. Of course, there were people like Oskar Schindler, Rudolf Kastner, and Chiune Sugihara, who helped to get thousands of Jews into safety. But that was never always guaranteed. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

In regards to this, I also want to add that some Jews escaped death during World War II by having certain abilities and/or talents which intrigued the concentration camp officials. I think that Jan Fischer's father (knew statistics), Simon Wiesenthal, and Alice Herz-Sommer (knew how to play music) would be examples of what I'm talking about. Also, in regards to Rudolf Kastner, his role is controversial due to him (and others) refusing to release the Vrba-Wetzler report sooner, which could have allowed many Jews to know what was coming to them and thus to escape in time. Futurist110 (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the first question, as KageTora said, it was very difficult for Jews in Western Poland to move somewhere else. As for the Jews in Eastern Poland, I heard that reliable info was hard to access in the Soviet Union, and in addition a lot of the Jews there thought that Nazi anti-Semitism was exaggerated and/or that the worst Nazi human rights abuses and anti-Semitism would soon be over. A lot of Jews in Eastern Poland (including many of my family members) thought and said that "we saw the Germans during WWI. They didn't do anything bad to us back then. Thus, we shouldn't panic too much about the Germans right now" or something along those lines. Also, as KageTora said, a lot of the Jews in Eastern Poland lived in small towns and/or in rural areas, and many of them had no family or relatives in the interior of the USSR who could help them move. Futurist110 (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Whether Stalin and the Soviet Union were actively anti-Semitic in the pre-war years is still being debated, however, the fact that "some 29 thousand Jews, or 1% of the total ethnic Jewish Soviet population, were arrested in 1937-1938" would not have made it seem a safe haven for Polish Jews, even before the Soviets invaded their country. See Stalin and antisemitism. Alansplodge (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that if a Jew realizes the severity of Nazi anti-Semitism, even the USSR (with all of its problems) would seem to be a better choice for him/her than Nazi Germany. My great-grandparents and three great-uncles of mine in Eastern Poland fortunately figured out what was going to happen to them if they remained where they were and thus fled to the interior of the USSR in 1941. Futurist110 (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I've heard much in my family about relatives and family friends who lived in Eastern Galicia (then Eastern Poland, now Western Ukraine) that were faced with the same choice, and all reported that there was great confusion then (in the short "window" when it was possible to choose) about whether the Nazis or the Soviets were the lesser of the two evils. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 23:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Technology arms race in low-latency trading

I've read about expensive/drastic measures companies take to reduce the communication delay between their trading computers and the stock exchange's. I wonder what would happen if stock exchange rules are changed so that very low communication latency is no longer an advantage. Imagine that the transaction processing rules are changed by law so that any trading computer with a communication latency below say 100ms to the stock exchange is not significantly advantaged compared with any other trading computer whose communication latency is also below 100ms. Would that be effective in stopping the technology arms race? Would that create other problems, besides unhappy traders who previously had an advantage from low latency? Would that drive companies to stock exchanges in other jurisdictions where they can continue to play the low-latency game? --173.49.17.199 (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a specific building where the fiber optic trunks come in around 40something's street... and all you say above is true. But what rule/system would the exchanges put in place that would fix it? Shadowjams (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Something like scheme that Lgriot outlined below (batching of orders and randomizing priorities within each batch, but probably using batching intervals shorter than 5 min.) The idea is, as Lgriot pointed out, not to execute orders to in a strict first-come-first-served basis. --173.49.17.199 (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Btw, 100 ms... laugh... you should be thinking more like 10 ms. Most fps work at < 30 ms. Shadowjams (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

100ms is just an example figure. The idea is to make the latency "requirement" very easy to meet, for all players, particularly those who can't afford to do what the big players do and those located on other continents. --173.49.17.199 (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's now down to microseconds, not milliseconds. This is achieved by ("co-")locating the trading computers in the same physical building as the "stock exchange". (It also means the trading engines have to avoid use of virtual memory.) Considerable efforts are made to ensure that no individual trader has an unfair advantage (e.g. some exchanges talk about individual cable lengths within the building all being the same length for different co-located traders, as even a slightly longer piece of optic fiber theoretically might put someone at a disadvantage of some microseconds). Putting in a 100ms delay wouldn't achieve much, since that would still be too fast for any human decisions to come into play. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

All correct, Demiurge, I also have seen this (in my own professional environment). There are groups now in the US that are trying to shave off 50 nano second "reaction time" in their trading systems. To kill the arms race, you would have to stop giving execution priority to the first-arrived-order, so, maybe an auction every 5 minutes, where each order has a random priority? However, this is like F1 car racing, which helps to fund research in car reliability, security, and efficiency, the fact that there is a demand somewhere means that there is research and development in that area, and we may all benefit with faster network technology in the not-so-farway future. --Lgriot (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is not much regulatory enthusiasm for bringing an end to the latency arms race. There is considerable regulatory enthusiasm, by contrast, for making problems like these less likely; large numbers of trades being executed at the wrong prices, exchanges being unexpectedly unavailable, or a company losing half a billion dollars in one hour due to that company running a rogue algorithm. (The Flash Crash attracted a great deal of attention too.)

I can imagine that deliberately running transactions in a random order, rather than based on the time of their arrival, would probably meet a lot of resistance, too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

See also High Frequency Trading: Time is Money, about microwave being used instead of optical fiber in some places, due to being (the piece says) milliseconds faster. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Art/Chinese Brush Painting

How is alum used in mixing watercolor paint and preparing paper or silk for painting on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.133.19 (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You may find this source very helpful. 140.254.226.238 (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Mizrahi and Sephardi Jew denser city

Tiberias is the only city that has dense Mizrahi and Sephardi Jew population. Is there any other cities in Israel that has dense population of Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.228.33 (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Lenten season

Can an unbaptized individual observe Lent? 140.254.121.34 (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

They can on their own, certainly. Do you mean to ask if the Catholic Church or some other organization includes them in Lenten activities ? StuRat (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. 140.254.121.34 (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Anybody can observe anything they wish. No one is going to stop you from following any specific set of actions relating to a religious observance like Lent. For example, if observing the various "Lenten fasts" interests you, feel free. It isn't like there's a Catholic Police Force that's going to storm your house and force you to eat meat on Friday. --Jayron32 21:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Beware if the Pontifical Swiss Guard buys black helicopters. StuRat (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

rumour has it, the Pope himself has a helicopter pilot's licence ;) ---- _nonsense ferret 22:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

So, does the Catholic Church or some other organization includes such people in Lenten activities? 140.254.121.34 (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

which activities? anyone is allowed to fast, observe sacrifices, attend church, and pray just as much as they want. What is not permitted of a non-bapitised person would be to receive the sacraments of the eucharist or reconciliation which are generally part of the Lenten activities for members of the Catholic Church ---- _nonsense ferret 22:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

What we have is in article Catechumen... AnonMoos (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

In many areas there are charity fund-raising events of the "eat soup for lunch and donate money" type, that anyone is welcome to participate in. Searching Catholic websites should show some of them. Anglicans/Episcopalians, Methodists, and I'm sure many others organise them. Or just give up smoking or chocolate, tidy the house, keep your temper... It's a good season to question what you really do and don't need in your life. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If the question is about taking part in an Ash Wednesday service, marking the first day of Lent, then an unBaptised person is indeed free to receive the ash cross on their forehead during such a service in a Catholic church. Such a person should take care not to go up for Communion later in the service, since that would be viewed as spiritually dangerous (and disrespectful) from a Catholic point of view. But anyone is free to be ashed. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Some of us feel free to be half-ashed. Deor (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not Catholic, but in the churches I've been in, you couldn't take communion unless you were a member of that specific congregation. So this restriction is not just a Catholic thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

We Anglicans are a little more laid back (at least in England) and are happy for anyone who takes Holy Communion at their own church to join in. A visiting Italian student had been with us several months before he realised that we weren't Roman Catholics. But if you hadn't been Baptized it wouldn't be appropriate. Alansplodge (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Is the metal in a U.S. penny worth more than $0.01?

Isn't metal pretty valuable? But then again if the metal in a penny were worth, say, 2 or 3 cents, everyone would be taking huge quantities of pennies to the scrap metal company to double or triple their money.. so it must not be the case, right?--67.85.176.244 (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There have been several times in the past when the metal in U.S. coins was worth more than their face value. Not sure if it's true of the penny right now, but it's illegal in the U.S. to melt down current U.S. coins. It's certainly true that the government's expenses in salaries and materials to mint and distribute pennies is more than 1¢ (and has been more than 1¢ for a number of years). AnonMoos (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This site will be of interest to you. It is true that it is illegal to do so. The Mint is presently exploring alternative materials, but the last report just asked for more time to look at the issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There is talk about doing away with the penny because of the cost, but the next higher coin is the nickle, and it costs considerably more to make a nickle than it does to make five pennies. 22:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RNealK (talk • contribs)

By the way, Canada is starting to phase out pennies now... AnonMoos (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If some were to ignore the laws about defacing currency would it not, then, be very profitable to melt down pennies and nickels in an underground/illegal setting? I'm surprised no one is doing this--Are there reports of people doing this? Or are the labor/equipment costs too high. It doesn't seem like you would need much except some metalworking equipment and hot fire and someone to sell the metal to who, presumably, wouldnt know where it came from. --67.85.176.244 (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You'd need to do it on a massive scale to make it profitable. But you can't just go to a bank with a million dollars and ask for 100 million pennies. Also, if it wasn't already illegal, they would soon make it so, when they figured out what you were doing. StuRat (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Before the US Mint banned the practice in 2006, there were several companies that considered melting down coins for their metal value (hence the ban). 173.52.95.244 (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Relationships being redefined in France

Meaning parents, fathers, husbands, wives, etc. Where can i find details? Kittybrewster ☎ 23:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You need to give us more. In what way do you think they are being redifined, and where did you hear this ? StuRat (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The French parliament recently voted to allow gay marriage - the OP is undoubtedly referring to that. There is a BBC News article on it here. We, of course, have our own article on the subject as well: Same-sex marriage in France. --Tango (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)