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

February 23

Ethnicity in Harvard

The ethnicity I've found about Harvard so far is pretty vague. It only has big category like Asian, White, Black, Hispanic/latino, Native American. But I want to know specific numbers of students of each nationality from around the world. Like how many Harvard students are Chinese, Indian, Iranian, Russian and so on... (Including those that were born in the US or come from that country). Is there any source that provide the information? If not then why Harvard doesn't publish such a vital information like that? Is there a reason to hide such a thing?184.97.244.130 (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Without answering the question directly, I note that your last question is a loaded question. It contains an as-yet-not-established assumption, and yet assumes that assumption to be true. What evidence do you have that Harvard University is deliberately covering up information? If you don't have any such evidence, then your last question is entirely unanswerable. --Jayron32 03:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Did I ever claim that Harvard University is deliberately covering up information. I'm saying if Harvard doesn't publish the information regarding specific ethnicity then what is the reason behind that?184.97.244.130 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

There does not need to be a reason for not publishing information. You haven't told us your age or eye color. Why not? Is there a reason to hide such a thing? --140.180.254.250 (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant comparison. My age and eye color have nothing to do with this. A reason the information I was asking is needed because of something called Affirmative action in the United States.184.97.244.130 (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You said, and I quote " Is there a reason to hide such a thing?" We cannot answer that question because you have not yet established that Harvard is hiding anything. --Jayron32 05:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, why is this knowledge "vital"? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It's "vital" because there is a thing called Affirmative action in the United States. This information is handy to see what are the chances of someone that can get to Harvard. I know there are so many other factors that determine one will get to Harvard or not but ethnicity is clearly one of them. It is well known that if you're Chinese then it would harder for you to get in Harvard due to intense number of Chinese applicants = intense competition = harder. 184.97.244.130 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Harvard itself has these figures.[1] The international population is only 11 percent, so there could be any number of reasons they don't care to break it down further. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No no, I'm not just talking about international students. What I mean is specific number of students in all the nationality and ethnicity including those that were born in the US or come from aboard. Most of Harvard students are American of course but many of them have ancestors come from many different countries. Example: number of Chinese that come from China or number of Chinese that were born in America or having Chinese ancestor are all considered as Chinese in Harvard, same thing apply to all the other ethnicity or nationality. I want to know that information not just international student.184.97.244.130 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Aha, and this item,[2] also published by Harvard, has a breakdown by country, for years 2007-2011, on page 4. I found these items in Google by searching [harvard enrollment by race] or something like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Though it is a very complicated matter, but I do not think that such things as "Iranian, Indian, Pakistani, Nigerian, Congolese", etc. are ethnicities, and not nationalities. "Russian" can mean both nationality and ethnicity but outside of Russia it's usually the former.--Yęzýkin (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Your first sentence has me scratching my head, Lüboslóv. Can you perhaps rephrase it more clearly? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, for example, Pakistani is not an ethnicity, as in Pakistan there are many ethnic groups. Strictly speaking to call Pakistani an "ethnicity" is wrong. Pakistani is a nationality. It would be strange if Harvard collected the information about how many Sindhis, Baluchis or Punjabis there are in the university.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

184.97.244.130 -- It sounds like Harvard is using the racial categories defined in recent U.S. censuses. -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Harvard even has this nationality information. To get admitted to Harvard, you need to send in 2 application forms: the Common Application, found here, and the Harvard Supplement, found here. Neither of them asks for nationality. The Common Application asks for race information in the categories the OP specified, but not nationality, and even the race section is optional. I'm in university right now, and I've never had to specify my nationality on any university documentation. --140.180.254.250 (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right that I know for sure now Harvard doesn't have information like that because in the application, it doesn't even ask to specify your ethnicity but just a big vague category.184.97.244.130 (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It asks for citizenship. Citizenship is a legal manifestation of a nationality. The link above by Baseball Bugs gives the statistics of students' origin by country.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, except the OP said above that he didn't want citizenship information. --140.180.254.250 (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I need to clear up something, let say I want to know how many Chinese or Indian in Harvard. The numbers I'm looking for including those Chinese or Indians that are from China, India or born in America such as Chinese American, Indian American. To me Chinese that come from China or Chinese that born in America are Chinese and should be counted as Chinese in Harvard. 184.97.244.130 (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting Harvard directly about this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No but I see no point in it now. There is no way Harvard could have gotten the information anyway due to the fact that the application doesn't even ask for the information.184.97.244.130 (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If they don't collect the information themselves on U.S. citizens, by what magical process do you expect it to exist elsewhere? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Now... if I were conspiracy minded, I would ask... why does Harvard not collect such information? Are they deliberately not collecting it so that they will not have something to hide? If so, what exactly are they not hiding, and why are they not hiding it? What did the President of Harvard not know and when did he not know it? Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That's got more 'not's in it than a cheap plank of pine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Legal status of Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

Was the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands technically US soil? I'm trying to determine whether the statement "the first thermonuclear device was detonated on US soil" is technically correct or not. The islands were obviously administered by the US, but I'm trying to figure out its exact legal status.

I read through United Nations trust territories but couldn't find the answer.Dncsky (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless the phrase "US soil" or a closely similar phrase is defined somewhere in legislation, then "technically correct" is a phrase without meaning. --ColinFine (talk)

By "US soil", I would assume the OP means "owned by the US", which I believe has a precise meaning. The article United Nations trust territories says All of the trust territories were administered through the UN Trusteeship Council, and that they were destined for independence, implying that they were owned by no one except possibly themselves but were administered by, in this case, the US on behalf of the UN. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands speaks of US administration of the territory, not ownership. And Territories of the United States lists the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands not under the various categories of "territories" but rather under the category "Areas formerly administered by the United States".

So I think it's impossible to justify calling the Trust Territory of the Pacific Island "US soil". Duoduoduo (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Clothing made in Palau is legally allowed to have labels saying "Made in the USA", even though factories there don't have to meet US labor laws. This has been a matter of some contention for a while now. RNealK (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent answer, Duoduoduo. Much obliged. Dncsky (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

USPS clothing line

I saw some news reports. They were about the United States Postal Service launching their own line of apparel. Who's going to manufacture the clothes? Will they be made here in the United States of America? When will the items come out?142.255.103.121 (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The clothes will be made by The Wahconah Group. For details, see this. --PlanetEditor (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Maharam

Our article Maharam says that it "is an acronym of the words ...מורנו הרב רבי מ (Morenu Ha-Rav rabi M..., Our teacher the Rabbi M...)." While מ is a frequent initial for names, it obviously isn't the only one. Are there other such acronyms ending in other letters for names that don't begin with "M"? — Sebastian 09:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Two such are "Maharal" for Judah Loew ben Bezalel and "Maharash" for either Meir Wahl or Shmuel Schneersohn. Deor (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

There is also "Ramban" for Nachmanides. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the question completely, but there is Rambam, Shach, Rashi, Radak, etc. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for your answers; they put my question nicely into context. Deor's reply was what I had been looking for. I'm wondering if we should add something like that to the Maharam article. I would have done so, but Evanh's uncertainty makes me doubt whether that would really improve the article. I'll suggest it at Talk:Maharam. — Sebastian 20:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC) - On second thought, a better place to discuss this is Talk:Hebrew name. — Sebastian 20:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Maharishi... Gzuckier (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The final "m" in Maharam, refers not to a name initial, but to the Hebrew prefix "m" which means "from", which is used as a disambiguator. Only small numbers of the most famous rabbis from history have unique acronyms, like Rashi. --Dweller (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The final 'm' in "Maharam" never stands for the Hebrew prefix mi-/me-; to so would be to create much ambiguity. It would be analogous to abbreviating "the Queen of England" to "th. Q. o.". All the various Maharam's I can think of had names starting in M: Maharam (me-)Rothenburg = Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg; Maraham (mi-)Lublin = Rabbi Meir of Lublin; Maharam Schik = Rabbi Moshe Schik; and so on. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 00:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. You could be right, in which case I apologise for misleading through my ignorance, but what about Yehuda Meir Shapiro? --Dweller (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The latter was usually referred to—in speech and in writing—as "Meir Shapiro" only, and not by his full name. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 18:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, that explains that then. Thanks for educating me. Apologies to anyone I might have misled. --Dweller (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Does Vatican have an intelligence agency

According to List_of_intelligence_agencies#Vatican, Secretary for Relations with States is Vatican's intelligence agency. But after going through the article, it does not seem to be an intelligence agency analogous to CIA or FSB. --PlanetEditor (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

According to our Vatican City article, "The military defence of the Vatican City is provided by Italy and its armed forces". I would imagine then that they rely on the Italians for external intelligence, but haven't found a reference that explicitly states that yet. Alansplodge (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

As a search will show, this is an area full of conspiracy theories like suggestions the Vatican run some sort of super secretive intelligence service that is the best in the world. Some of the less extreme discussions I came across as [3] and [4]. (I'd note the later mentions as extant, Sodalicium Pianium which I assume is a typo of Sodalitium Pianum which our article suggests hasn't existed for a long time.) Even this CBC Canada obituary of Pope John Paul II [5] says 'It is said that such connections give a pope unofficially one of the best intelligence services anywhere. And the Vatican's timeless diplomatic corps is widely viewed as one of the world's best.' On the other hand, this book [6] [7] which analyses the situation from Pius VII to Pius XII, mentioned by the CIA here [8] suggests even then Vatican intelligence isn't all it's cracked up to be. One thing that is believable from the earlier links is that the Vatican (as with most governments) likely cooperates to some extent with anyone willing to provide useful information who they have some degree of alignment with which likely includes not just the Italians but the US, UK etc Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --PlanetEditor (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Terrorism in Canada

There has been a fresh report of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service warning of possible attacks within the country. What could be the possible targets?. I mean, the Twin Towers were a highly notable target. But in Canada? Thank. Kotjap (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I doubt there are Wikipedians who work for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, so it will be impossible for us to answer your question. --PlanetEditor (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Terrorist attacks do not necessarily have to be on highly visible locations—I would even suggest that the use of symbolic targets (such as in the 9/11 attacks) is quite rare. Any attack would likely occur in a highly visible location, such as the downtown area of a major city. The phrase "terrorist attack" is quite broad in scope—violent attacks on public transport or large, highly-visible buildings would be most probable, though something less targeted (a car bombing, for example) could also be likely. 124.148.93.246 (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Most terrorist attacks hit civilian targets, and can be anywhere. Just like the 7 July 2005 London bombings, which was on three trains and a bus. Some terrorists target women shopping in the market, others target children in schools. Most high-level targets, such as Parliament, and so on, are heavily guarded, and thus will not present a target, so they go for the most vulnerable. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The 2005 London attacks were aimed at major transport hubs, the suspected reason for a bus being targeted was that the Underground had already shut-down when the last bombers arrived. In previous decades, the Provisional Irish Republican Army had targeted economic targets such as the Baltic Exchange and a shopping centre in Warrington crowded with children. So you're right that could be almost anywhere, but there's usually a twisted logic behind it. Alansplodge (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The bombing of the shopping centre in Warrington had an apology issued afterwords, as we in Liverpool and the North West in general are ethnically Irish. It was unfortunate that the apology was not for killing children, although it was expressed that way. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

For a start 2006 Ontario terrorism plot may be of interest. Targets contemplated include the Canadian Broadcasting Centre, the Canadian Parliament building, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) headquarters itself, the parliamentary Peace Tower, and power grids. Of course, this doesn't mean they would have succeeded in penetrating any or all of these targets, some of which (such as parliament) are supposedly well-guarded. (I say supposedly, as incidents such as this suggest reality may sometimes be otherwise). They also contemplated assassinating Ministers, including the Prime Minister. I assume any future terrorists may consider a similar target set. Hope this helps. 58.111.191.25 (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Washington (and others) in the Confederacy

In what sort of regard were the Founding Fathers of the United States (and even later presidents) held in the Confederacy? Washington is featured prominently on the Great Seal of the Confederate States of America, but how many others were revered as "national heroes", or even claimed as predecessors to those involved in the CSA? Would this have been just limited to figures from the South, or based along more political lines? 124.148.93.246 (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Had the South won, there would be a whole revisionist literature on the subject. We can assume John Adams and John Quincy Adams would have been unpopular as anti-slavery Northerners. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton would have been unpopular for defending the Federal Constitution over the Articles of Confederation. μηδείς (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't find anything in Confederate States of America about it (though I might have missed it). But my memory is that the Founding Fathers in general were held in high regard, and the secessionists believed that they were going back to the values of the Founding Fathers, who had been betrayed by the mid-1800s US. As for the US Constitution versus the Articles of Confederation, my memory is that the secessionists revered the Constitution just as they revered the Founding Fathers. For example, Confederate States of America#Constitution says Much of the Confederate States Constitution replicated the United States Constitution verbatim, but.... Duoduoduo (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson's reputation in the South had declined because of his authorship of the Declaration of Independence and the phrase "all men are created equal", an idea against which Southern leaders had long been waging rhetorical war. In his Cornerstone Speech, Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens explained that Jefferson and like-minded founders were "fundamentally wrong" for thinking that slavery was a "violation of the laws of nature". The founders were still admired, however, and Stephens later clarified that he had not meant to question their patriotism, ability, or wisdom. The Confederates admired former presidents Washington and Jackson enough to put them on their money, both ironic choices; Jackson in particular would have likely hanged every Confederate leader he could have gotten his hands on. —Kevin Myers 06:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Postage stamps and postal history of the Confederate States may be helpful, as is this page. Confederate stamps largely featured Jefferson Davis, and they had one issue with John C. Calhoun, but they also featured Jackson, Jefferson, and Washington. For a while, one US stamp (nicknamed the "Black Jack") and one CSA stamp featured the same portrait of Jackson! Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Is Wilson Jermaine Heredia considered black?

Is Wilson Jermaine Heredia considered black? Venustar84 (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Define "black". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody needs to define "black", because the question was only whether he is considered black. The best I've found so far is an interview in which he says: "See, my dad is a black Dominican and my mom is a white Dominican, so the 70s were very rough for them here." [9], which tells you that his father is considered black and his mother is not. Someone who is more au fait with American concepts of race will probably be better able than I to find references on whether he himself is considered black in general. The simplest reference would, I assume, be a quote from him in which he described himself with a racial term, or him being featured in an article or award centred around race. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The only definition that matters is what he considers himself. Race is a self-identified issue in the U.S. The official census stance on this is that a person is whatever race they pick on the census form, and there is no other official test or proof. What anyone else "considers" him is irrelevant. --Jayron32 22:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Having done a bit of searching, I couldn't find any instances in which Heredia was labeled "black". I found instances where he was labeled "Hispanic", "Latino", and "mixed race", but not "black". That isn't to say that no one has ever called him black, but he does not seem to be widely considered black. Marco polo (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Just looking at his pictures on Google Images, my first thought was medium-toned Hispanic rather than any strong African heritage. But as you suggest, it can be hard to tell sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Venustar84 -- traditionally in the United States there was the One-drop rule, but that's semi-irrelevant nowadays, and there's not any real "official" definition as such... AnonMoos (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Es muy dominicano, pero no muy negro. No entiendo que le importa. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

There ya go. P.S. He's taken this question to the Entertainment Desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Passport control

Does one need a passport to travel between Russia and Ukraine? Does it depend on your nationality? Do Russians need a passport? Would Americans? RNealK (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It may depend on nationality, but I suspect it is mandatory for all nationalities. Russians require a passport, but no visa, to travel to Ukraine. Americans require a passport, and also a visa if staying for over 90 days. See this site. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The question arises because of the movie A Good Day to Die Hard, where the two American characters drive from Moscow to Chernobyl where no mention is made of their stopping at the border. Of course, their grasp on geography is rather tentative, since they seem to think Grenoble is in Switzerland. RNealK (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You are aware that is a fictional story, with the definition of fiction being "making stuff up", right? --Jayron32 02:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

He's probably also aware that, even in fiction, there are usually at least some elements of reality that are preserved. Human beings are often interested in determining which elements of a fictional work are 'real', and which are modified (or invented from whole cloth). Sometimes this curiosity arises in the context of artistic criticism, sometimes because it can be fun to geek out, and sometimes because one might be planning a vacation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but there is no means of reliably determining which elements are made up and which elements are based in truth. I mean, some stuff is truthful in movies like this (Gravity works mostly; people aren't floating off into space). However, the main goal of the story tellers is to present entertainment, and all is in service to that. Other elements in the story may be truthful or not to any degree necessary to serve the story. Things such as the laws of physics, international laws regarding border controls, etc. etc. will be truthful or made up as needed to serve the main plot. If the plot requires that there is no passport control between Ukraine and Russia, there will be none, often without comment or explanation, because the people who wrote the movie wanted the characters to go from Moscow to Chernobyl, and it didn't fit their needs to represent the actual situation accurately. --Jayron32 15:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Most third-country nationals definitely need a passport (US citizens, certainly do) to cross the border, whether by air or overland, In many cases they need a visa from one or both of Russian and Ukraine. As to the nationals of Russia and Ukraine themselves, a treaty was signed in 1997 ( http://ria.ru/spravka/20121212/914540165.html ) which allows travel with just national ID documents; it is still in force. On the other hand,, at least overland. Now Timatic says that even Russians and Ukrainians need passports to fly between the two countries, but perhaps their database does not include all the rules. -- Vmenkov (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

We have a list of passport-free borders, including the CIS. However, you need to show your ID card at the border. CS Miller (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It's quite possible such a scene was written and/or filmed, but got cut from the final print. Happens quite often with scenes that fill in gaps, but aren't central to the story. We'll have to wait for the DVD to come out with extra scenes or commentary to be sure. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Immanuel Kant and German idealism

1. I am not primarily interested in Kant's morals and ethics. What I cannot grasp is what his thoughts about reality were. What does he mean by "transcendental"? Why did this spark so much reaction? From what I've read, it sounds like he was talking about some strange notion of another plane or something. Did he think contradictions could be true?
2. What does the idealism in German idealism have in common with Berkeley's immaterialism?
3. What the heck is Hegel talking about when it comes to God, history, and ideas? Did he think everything in existence was some giant idea or was he making analogies? Was this concept of the Absolute that he had come up with something like Brahman? Did he think contradictions could be true? What does he have to do with Marx?

— Melab±1 ☎ 23:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ding-an-sich, Antinomy, Transcendental idealism, Subjective idealism, and dialectic might be useful starting points. Tevildo (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hehe. On every fundamental issue, Kant’s philosophy is the exact opposite of Objectivism. -brief summary, Ayn Rand. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is this relevant? — Melab±1 ☎ 04:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, I was not aware Ayn Rand was opposed to Kantianism. --PlanetEditor (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Not just opposed, she described Kant as literally evil. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Those last three articles are not helpful. — Melab±1 ☎ 04:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

1.a. Transcendental broadly describes those methods and things which deal with conditions for thought, as described in Kant's first critique. Here's a normal way of describing Kant's metaphysical philosophy in an historical setting: Kant accepts Hume's/Teten's empiricism (which analyzes knowledge down to matters of fact and relations between ideas), and thus is also skeptical of Leibnizian-Wolffian metaphysics (which seems to extend beyond any grounding in mere matters of fact or relations between ideas). However, he also believes that such empiricism can allow synthetic a priori truths beyond what Hume or Tetens recognized, more in line with what Leibniz/Wolff recognized. This is the transcendental turn, which Kant calls his "Copernican Revolution" in metaphysics. This turn is showing that empirical thought, which is well-grounded in the content of experience, has conditions of its possibility, and these conditions give a grounding to synthetic a priori thought. These conditions of possibility, Kant theorizes, are part of what it is to be human: Human thought is constrained into experiencing the world in certain forms. These constraints thus determine human thought prior to any experience. One example: human experience is guaranteed to have effects related to causes; Hume could not find causation in anything but constant conjunction of sense data; Kant thinks there is a robust necessity between cause and effect in experience. The necessity of causes for effects is one of the things Kant thinks transcendental philosophy helps establish. These matters are well described in various ways in Graham Bird's The Revolutionary Kant and Henry Allison's Kant's Transcendental Idealism, 2nd Edition.

b. Kant sparked a lot of reaction because his arguments are very compelling, while the arguments from the Leibnizian-Wolffians, which was the dominant philosophy at the time, were also very compelling, while the two metaphysical systems are very different and contradictory. Also, Kant seems to be the first to have theorised that the objective world is partly determined by subjective human nature. You might think that Kant also sparked much reaction from going beyond Hume, but really Hume wasn't popular at the time. Hume became popular again with Russell and the logical positivists/empiricists. Lorne Falkenstein is a current professor who wrote a famous book on Kant, Kant's Intuitionism. He later abandoned studying Kant because he felt Kant, in the end, just fails to make sense, and now champions Hume's skeptical empiricism as the superior philosophy.

c. Not another plane, no.

d. He did not think that two contradictory propositions could both be true, no. That is dialethism.

2. They both limit human experience to ideas. One difference is that Kant also thinks that there are things in themselves, albeit of unknown quality and quantity; Berkeley thinks there are only ideas.

3. I don't know Hegel. I believe he did indeed think that everything in experience is an idea. I know some who treat Hegel as the same as any other philosopher. I have also heard this about Hegel (paraphrasing): "Hegel is a perfect example of the common notion of a sophist." What the person meant was that Hegel just makes a nice sounding myth and intentionally weaves fallacious arguments together without sincerity.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Melab, I suggest you try the Stanford Philosophical Encyclopedia, here is a list of their articles on Kant and Kant topics. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

February 24

Ludovic Kennedy - review of Mark Peel's The Land of Lost Content

In 1996, Ludovic Kennedy wrote a review of Mark Peel's book The Land of Lost Content, ISBN 1-85821-400-9. The review was published in a major UK newspaper. It was entitled "Too small a man in too big a job?" A subheading (perhaps called a byline in some places) said "Ludovic Kennedy assesses the good and bad marks of a controversial Head". The image caption reads "Chenevix-Trench at Eton in 1964: 'He never bore a grudge'".

I've searched with title and author on Questia and Highbeam, but either they don't have it or I'm Doing Something Wrong(TM).

Which newspaper? What was the date it was published? (And, if possible, page number?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Have checked The Times and the Guardian/Observer and the FT; it is none of those. Seems likely to be the Sunday Times, for which Ludo K. did write book reviews occasionally. Otherwise Daily or Sunday Telegraph or The Independent or the Independent on Sunday (none of these is fully electronically searchable for the year in question, unfortunately). I've tried Newsbank, which does have some items from those titles, but to no avail. -- Alarics (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

There was a (extremely critical) review of this book in The Guardian (London) September 4, 1996 entitled "SIR, THE SADIST" written by Paul Foot but which mentions Ludovic Kennedy prominently - this is a reprint of the same article by Foot in the 'London Review of Books' --_nonsense ferret 13:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It turns out to be the Telegraph, although I'm still looking for exact date and page number. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Searching for a lost reference

Hi, I was reading on the internet a while back, some article by a sociologist of religion. I only remember that he was an Evangelical/ Fundamentalist Christian (not sure which, or quite how strong, but quite strong in his beliefs) and his research had studied what makes people join a religion. He said that it was quite curious that they had found that it didn't matter what the religion was, as people began associating with it, it became progressively more likely, indeed almost certain, that they would join. Does anyone have any clue who the sociologist might be? I'm pretty sure he was from the US, and I don't think his name was extremely well known to the public, but he was fairly prominent in his field. IBE (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Was Horst Wessel a capitalist and the first capitalist Nazi?

He wrote Horst-Wessel-Lied where he harshly condemn the Reds. Was he the first Nazi to openly express capitalism? Thank. Kotjap (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I know nothing about Horst Wessel himself, but in the early days of the Nazi party, there were many members who rejected international / Marxist / Soviet / "Jewish" socialism, but were in favor of a socialism along German nationalist lines, and so were not necessarily supporters of unreconstructed capitalism in its then-current form. That's why the party was called the "National Socialist Party". Hitler discarded most of the meaningful socialist content in the 1930s... AnonMoos (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Note also that opposition to one group of people does no no way imply support for a group that particular group opposes in turn. The Nazi opposition to "communism" had less to do with economic theory and more to do with their strong nationalism and political rivalry. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Conditions of Oscar Pistorius' bail, or lack thereof

Dunno if someone can answer this question, but I might as well try.

Recently, I was reading of the (well publicised) decision to grant Oscar Pistorius bail. I make no comment on the correctness of this decision. However, one thing did very much surprise me.

In the media reports of the conditions set for Pistorius' bail, there appeared to be no mention of any condition that he surrender his firearms, and not possess any others. In the jurisdiction I come from (Australia) and presumably many other jurisdictions, such a condition would be absolutely included in a case of alleged murder (or even manslaughter / culpable homicide) by means of a firearm. (Well, any exceptions would be highly extraordinary, that's all I can say). What am I missing? Possibly the South African Police Force have already suspended his firearms licence(s) and seized his guns? Or has there been a (IMHO) gross oversight by the prosecutors on this issue?

Yes, I understand that South Africa is a dangerous country, and people may generally obtain licences to carry a gun in self-defence. But in a case like this (where, by all accounts, the accused has shot and killed an innocent person), surely there would be an exception?

(My question is very specific - please don't go into tangents on questions of Pistorius' guilt or innocence, or the correctness of the decision to grant him bail). 58.111.191.25 (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I can't remember where, but I read that he had to surrender his firearms. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The surrender of firearms is very much one of the many conditions placed on Pistorius's release on bail, to wit:

• He appears in court on 4 June at 8.30am.
• He surrenders all passports.
• He refrains from applying for any passports.
• He refrains from entering any airport.
• He surrenders all firearms.
• He refrains from possessing any firearms.
• He refrains from talking to any witnesses for the prosecution.
• He will have a probation officer and correctional official from the date of release until the conclusion of the case.
• He shall inform the official of all his movements and ask for permission for any journeys outside Pretoria.
• He shall give them a phone number and must be contactable day and night.
• He must not be charged with an offence of violence against women.
• He must not use drugs or alcohol.
• He must not return to his home and must not make contact with any residents of his estate except the Stander family.

- Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)]]

The ex governor of Illinois had to surrender his Illinois Firearms License when he was indicted. Shadowjams (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

When I was a journalist, I frequently reported on criminal defendants getting bail by mentioning only the financial amount. Most of the other conditions are boilerplate and imposed on everyone, with little or no discussion in court. Typically only the money gets any discussion. If one of the other conditions were an issue of contention, it would likely be mentioned in the media.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 17:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The surrender of firearms was certainly mentioned in the news reports I heard on BBC Radio 4, along with surrendering his passports and not being allowed to go to his home. --ColinFine (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yea, the surrender of firearms seems critical, to me. Even if we believe his story, that still makes him an idiot and/or delusional, in that he imagines intruders behind the bathroom door and opens fire on whoever's there, sight unseen. Such a person should never have access to firearms. StuRat (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we please refrain from gratuitous violations of WP:BLP? μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Even in the gun crazy! United States, felons, domestic abusers, habitual drug users, and.......... people on bail are prohibited from possessing guns. Similarly many are prohibited from leaving the country, are required to check in, etc. South Africa has some quite strict gun laws. I suspect whatever this case is about, the gun aspect is the least important part. Shadowjams (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Do price gouging laws not apply to the health care industry?

I was reading this article, which has many examples from people's bills, such as $283 for a chest X-ray which costs medicare-covered people $20.44, or (on page 2) $18 for a single diabetes test strip when a free market example of Amazon shows them freely available for 55 cents each. Are these not cases of price gouging? Or if so, why is health care exempted? 67.163.109.173 (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that these examples are outrageous, but they don't constitute price gouging. As our article defines it, price gouging occurs when suppliers drastically raise price in response to an emergency, for example when the price of plywood shoots up as a hurricane approaches. Looie496 (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The keyword you want is "chargemaster". Quote from the following article (which is referring to the Times article in your link) "Brill repeatedly discusses the "chargemaster," which is basically the internal price list at every hospital, which has no basis in reality whatsoever, but which the poorest patients, and those without insurance, or with limited insurance, are often hit over the head with. Throughout the article, Brill details over and over and over again how hospital administrators and spokespeople all refused to address the chargemaster at all, constantly blowing it off as no big deal, because so few people actually pay the list price. . A quick Google search for U.S chargemaster confirm this practice. ex: [10]. As Looie said it's not really price gouging, just a bad systematic setup based on distorted financial incentive. Lastly not ideal but very interesting reddit link. Royor (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Note that having an absurdly high Suggested Retail Price is by no means limited to the health care system. Many industries set the price at 10 times their cost, then announce 80% off sales. The difference, in the case of US health care, seems to be that some people (those without insurance or a government program negotiating the price down) have no choice but to be charged the full price. In many cases, they can just choose not to pay, and the health care system will just absorb that cost (tack even more onto everybody else's bill), but you occasionally run up against a health care provider that plays hardball, and actually insists on being paid at this absurdly high rate. StuRat (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hah! They sure as hell wouldn't just "absorb the cost" - more like refer the bill to collection and the fun time begin: collection -> law suit to garnish wages, failing that, repo. Royor (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, in most cases, they don't pursue it to that degree. It just isn't in their business interest to do so. There's the cost of the bad publicity, cost of lawyers, and a fairly low possibility of recovering much cash, as people who've been chronically ill and racked up huge medical bills are often already broke. So, whether the patient declares bankruptcy or not, they aren't likely to be able to pay. They might also die before the legal mess clears. Better to just overcharge the next patient by even more, etc., until you find a sucker who actually pays. StuRat (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This may sound like i am defending some of the absurd overcharging in the US healthcare industry, but you should understand that the economics are bizarre and there are just as many examples of services that are grossly underpaid for. Imagine a hardware store that must give plywood to anyone who walks in for free-- and those folks feel no obligation to pay at all, and many others with chits from the government that will pay the store 10 cents a sheet and you begin to understand why the store might be tempted to charge those willing to pay about 10x what it costs the store. The basic forces that produced this strange mess are (1) third party payment for most medical care so that consumers and doctors pay no attention to price, and (2) the expectation by a rising proportion of the population that they shouldnt have to pay for it but shouldnt be turned away. Watch what happens next year when the hardware stores are required to give plywood to 3x as many people for 7 cents a sheet. alteripse (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As pointed out, hospitals routinely do have to just absorb costs. Many without health insurance simply do not have the money to pay back the bills. No property, no vehicle, nothing that could really make a dent in some of these bills.

In some cases, it would cost more in attempts to collect than would be worth the trouble. Hospitals will often have assistance programs for people making a good-faith effort to pay, at a reduced amount of the bill. The rest is just a loss. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

"Price gouging" is code for "other ways of apportioning scarce resources, probably through lines and political connections". Shadowjams (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

ah, the thorny thicket of medical pricing. Best expressed on a blog I was reading as "We pretend to bill for our services, and they [insurers, payors, etc] pretend to pay for them." To begin with: providers of all types have exorbitant "list prices", a small fraction of which is actually paid by large payors, i.e. insurers including Medicare, who have the bargaining clout to threaten to steer their large numbers of patients elsewhere if they dont get a huge break. Of course, the chances of collecting more from uninsured people than they collecty from the insured are not good.

This leads hospitals to bill ridiculous amounts like $10 for an aspirin, because/wherever they can; inpatient pharmacy appears on bills as a lump sum not line items, so cannot be disputed/bargained. This is, of course, the reaction to the hospitals being squeezed to death by payors on everything which is itemized, plus the sad fact that government reimbursement for care they are legally required to give to people who can't/don't pay is nowhere near what the hospital actually shells out for such care. Bottom line, hospitals are perpetually broke and will do what they can to scrape up a buck. (note that my experience is limited to non-profit hospitals). This applies only to the hospitals, not the doctors providing the care within, who are totally separate billing entities. This also does include dunning people who are too poor to have insurance (as distinct from just deciding not to), are not insured by their employer, and nevertheless have something like a house which can be seized. Aside from the arguably just instances of such, there are also plenty of instances of extortive interest rates, often leading to enormous bills for somebody who didn't even know they owed anything until much later; "going where the money is", i.e. ignoring the person who actually incurs the debt in favor of pursuing an estranged spouse or similar even when said person is not only not ethically, but not even legally obliged to cover the bills; and plenty of just chasing the entirely wrong person, etc. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Again, this is arguably as much from a sense of self-preservation and reaction to being forced to provide uncompensated care as any free-floating greed, and the kind of thing universal insurance, of any kind, is designed to eliminate. Gzuckier (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

trying to understand international politics

excuse me if this is a naive question but i was wondering. are arab shahs kings etc automatically targets for america when they travel? sorry if this is offensive to anyone i was just wondering about this international situation. if you need to reply to correct some basic misunderstanding or link to an article i am happy to read anything, thank you. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Shah is a Persian/Iranian title. Iran is not an Arab country. Many Arab countries (and many non-Arab countries with Muslim majorities) are US allies - e.g. Saudi-Arabia and Kuweit. Many others have reasonably friendly relations with the US. So no, Arab leaders are not automatic targets for the US (much less "america"). In general, states are no supposed to target civilians at all. Sanctions are sometimes imposed that limit travel to certain countries, but there is no international legal basis for attacking civilians. Moreover, it's generally illegal to perform military or police action in a foreign state without the local government's consent, unless in a declared state of war. This is sometimes violated, but still widely frowned upon. The major reason for that is that states are sovereign, and need to keep a reasonable protocol to talk to each other to avoid escalation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) see also United Arab Emirates–United States relations. As Stephan said, lots of Arab countries have good relations with the US. IBE (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was confused, I thought for example that any high-level arabs would be killed on sight due to the war on terror. i didn't think america had arab allies though i guess i should have thought of it. sorry if i offended anyone - you can close this question if you want as my question has been asnwered. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The 'War on Terror' is not a war on Arabs generally, or on any Arab state. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The only Arab leader I can see possibly being targeted right now is Syria's Bashar al-Assad, as this might bring the Syrian civil war to an end. However, due to the unpredictable aftermath, I doubt if even this course of action has been seriously considered. StuRat (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Arthur I, Duke of Brittany

Was there any political motive in naming Arthur I, Duke of Brittany after the king of Camelot? Henry VII named his son and heir Arthur because the Tudor's were Wesh and had he reign it would fulfil the Arthurian legend. Bur Arthur wasnt in line since his uncle Richard was still alive. And were there any royals before the duke of Brittany named Arthur? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Emperor's New Spy (talk • contribs)

Broadly, yes, Arthur I's name did have political connotations - although there are only a limited number of studies in this area. The Arthurian legends were new and very popular during the late 12th century. Henry II, Arthur's grandfather, was the patron of a number of collections of Arthurian stories, and was also involved - according to the chroniclers - in the "discovery" of the legendary Arthur's tomb at Glastonbury, as well as arguing that the legendary Arthur was the ruler of Ireland, which Henry also conquered/reclaimed.

Geoffrey's relationship with Henry was sometimes difficult, and he seems to have used the Arthurian mythos to bolster his own rule in the Duchy. The young 12th century Arthur was born after Geoffrey's death, and the chronicler Geoffrey of Monmouth suggests that there was something of a dispute over the naming of the child - Henry II apparently wanting him to be called Henry, and the local Breton nobility preferring Arthur. The naming of Geoffrey's child in this way would have had resonances of glory, future success and a stronger Duchy. Richard I, who declared Arthur his heir when he went on crusade, was also interested in the legends, and his nomination of Arthur as his heir would probably have added to the political atmospherics. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This was in the early days of the popularity of the Arthurian legend with the ruling class of England. It was really dredged out of obscurity by Geoffrey of Monmouth, whose book, Historia Regum Britanniae was written in 1131. Although the book started with Brutus of Troy and told mythical stories about all the supposed British kings until they were finally overwhelmed by the Saxons, King Arthur was the star of the book, It tells how he conquered most of Europe and was laying siege to Rome when his empire suddenly collapsed due to treachery at home. Most of the story's early success was that it showed the Saxons as treacherous usurpers, who were beaten by Arthur in a series of battles. Geoffrey was creating "...an ahistorical continuity of rule, from the kingdom of Arthur to the kingdom of Henry, thus picturing the Anglo-Saxons as the true interlopers."[16] If there is a political pretext, that's where my money is. Alansplodge (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the Arthurian legends were of especial importance in Brittany. The Bretons saw themselves as the true descendents of Arthur. Gildas, one of the main saints of Brittany, refers to the Battle of Badon having occurred in the year he was born (calling the English a "rascally crew"). The relation of continental versions of Arthurian lore to oral Breton traditions is not fully known. It's quite possible there was a strong local identification with Arthur linked to anti-English (Anglo-Saxon) sentiment which merged with the revival promoted by Geoffrey, who was certainly trying to affirm a Welsh (Brythonic/Briton/Breton) allance with the Normans to marginalise the interloping English. Paul B (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point. By this time, Henry II had ensured that Arthur had more Plantaganet blood than Breton, see Dukes of Brittany, and probably reinforcing his Breton heritage would have been an advantage. BTW, Gildas was a Briton rather than a Breton, but the two nations shared a common language and heritage. Alansplodge (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

'Briton' and 'Breton' were the same thing in his lifetime. Indeed there may even have been an idea at least of common rulership over Brythonic territory. He was born in Britain but died in Brittany. He is "one of the main saints of Brittany" because he lived and died in Brittany and is identified with Brittany by Bretons. There are numerous shrines to him there and places named after him. The statue depicted at the top of our page on him is in Brittany. Ask a Breton who Gildas is, and they'll have at least heard of him. Ask a Briton and they'll say "who?". Paul B (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I wasn't aware of the Breton connection. A note in our article says that "some scholars, most notably Frank Reno, think that Gildas of Britain and Gildas of Rhuys were distinct personages." Alansplodge (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Martin Aurell's chapter in "Henry II: New Interpretations" is good if you've got access to it. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Why does my country execute three prisoners at the same time?

Always, when here are executions, there are three hanged. Why?. It's Japan. Kotjap (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder why not 4. Four is sometimes pronounced shi in Japanese, which is also the word for death. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Does the execution facility have room for only 3 ? If so, then they might choose to execute 3 at once, figuring this will reduce the publicity over 3 separate executions. StuRat (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, according to Capital_punishment_in_Japan#Execution: the OP's assumption is not true. They tend to execute people together, for whatever reason, but that can be one, two, three or four. It just happen that three at a time was more common. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

February 25

Psychology, unemployment and culture

A criticism I've seen of proposed post-capitalist economic systems such as The Venus Project is that humans have a psychological need to earn their living. However, I've also seen it suggested that this an artifact of the culture of capitalist economies, and might change if earning a living was no longer the norm. If this response were valid, I'd expect the harmful psychological, non-financial effects of being unemployed or not seeking work to vary among different economic and cultural contexts (e.g. to be smaller in areas where the employment rate is chronically lower). Have any studies tested this? NeonMerlin 01:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No studies. When I think about how someone would try to measure any "innate need to earn", distinguishable from an "innate need to do something of use for your group" the question quickly devolves into meaninglessness-- or at least unprovable political opinion. You are perhaps aware of the rising tide of disgust, distress, and concern throughout North America and Europe about an enervating "culture of entitlement" in which an increasing proportion of the population feels no need to work whatsoever? In that context, I think the concept of a "psychological need to work" one of the stupidest ideas i have heard in a long time-- but that is just my opinion. alteripse (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not up on that area of psychology, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be possible to do experimental studies of the effects on happiness/satisfaction of having a job. I would be amazed if no such studies had ever been done. The response above doesn't give the impression of being written on the basis of knowledge. Looie496 (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

To eliminate the possible effect on happiness of having or lacking money, the study would have to have one group of people who work for a living, and another who are paid the same, despite not working. Of course, this neglects all the costs associated with working, such as transportation, clothing, lunches out, etc.

Personally, I don't think it's working, per se, from which we derive satisfaction, but only certain types of jobs, where we feel we can accomplish something concrete. If you are employed to do something meaningless, then this might have a negative effect on self-esteem.

Conversely, as was alluded to above, we can derive satisfaction from unpaid work where we feel we accomplish something. StuRat (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Louie, you might brush up your reading comprehension before snarking inaccurately. The question very specifically did not ask whether people with a job were happier than those without, but whether any studies supported a "need to earn a living" as opposed to having it given to you. And when you show us some facts that contradict what I wrote, you can then describe it as showing lack of "knowledge". alteripse (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I wish to clarify first: I believe User:NeonMerlin originally asked: Have any studies tested whether "harmful psychological, non-financial effects of being unemployed or not seeking work" vary "among different economic and cultural contexts"? Such is what the "this" refers to in User's last question. User did not ask whether "any studies supported a "need to earn a living" as opposed to having it given to you" except perhaps indirectly by asking the first question given. There are such studies. See [17] for some examples. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like NeonMerlin to clarify the meaning of "psychological need to earn a living". It doesnt matter how many studies show that unemployed people are happier or unhappier than average if that isnt the question he asked. alteripse (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Atethnekos is right on the money with the interpretation of the question. The first bit is background; the actual question is in the last 2 sentences. I also don't see anything objectionable in Looie's post. I too would have thought such studies would exist (and Atethnekos has given some examples), and I would think they were relevant whatever the exact configuration of the question. The OP can judge the exact relevance, and clarify and refine if he so desires. IBE (talk) 08:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Looie, StuRat, Atethnekos, and IBE. And any response of the form "No studies" is ill-advised. Better would have been "I'm not aware of any studies". And the OP's question was I'd expect the harmful psychological, non-financial effects of being unemployed or not seeking work to vary among different economic and cultural contexts (e.g. to be smaller in areas where the employment rate is chronically lower). Have any studies tested this? Duoduoduo (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Most postcapitalisms assume that most people will work, and many assume that people will earn salaries connected to the amount of labour done. What may be the case is that we all have a psychological need for a career as opposed to just a job, a need that current forms of capitalism find hard to fulfil. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I find the "career" thing a bit unlikely, or at least needing evidence. Personally I never use the word - I regard it as a mispronunciation of "job" most of the time. What I feel we need is some other kind of outlet. For me that is reading, chess and Wikipedia. I also get a buzz out of my PhD at times, but not for career-related reasons - the career thing is a drag. Publish or perish, do this, do that, deal with muppets who pull your strings, and so on. Sorry if I'm derailing this into chat/ discussion, but if anyone knows references for or against Itsmejudith's suggestion, please contribute - I would be curious to know what there is regarding the type of work. I would expect that a feeling of "empowerment" is quite relevant, but we get it in different ways. IBE (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't disagree with you. We all need interests -self-actualisation in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. That can be gained in paid work or outside paid work. I would also relate it to our curiosity and need to learn. If an activity is too unfamiliar it is uninteresting or stressful; if it is too familiar, it is dull. So given that even in ideal societies food must be put on plates, the challenge for social organisation is how to share the tasks so that a maximum number of people are able to extend their skills and be productive at the same time. It doesn't mean career in the sense of greasy pole, more like career in the sense of the bricklayer who works on more and more complex and ornate pieces, then moves into training the next generation. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as references go, are you familiar with the works of Andre Gorz? His Critique of Economic Reason is an extended discussion of all this. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference - I've taken note. Sadly at the moment I'm too busy climbing the greasy pole ... IBE (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Atheistic religions

It seems to me that neither polytheism nor monotheism nor atheism is a religion, but a particular religion may be polytheistic or monotheistic or atheistic. The only religion that I have heard called atheistic is Buddhism. Are there others? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Taoism has any God-like figures in its core belief system. --Jayron32 05:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Shinto ? New Age ? StuRat (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Atheism itself has some resemblance to religion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It all depends on how you choose to define the words, but we should be more regimented with our definitions. Religion is generally defined to be an organisation that has a belief in a supernatural deity, and someone who is part of that organisation or follows those beliefs is religious. Polytheism and monotheism are simply different type of religion - note the use of theism. Atheism (a-theism) on the other hand is the rejection of theism. To call atheism a religion is like calling sport a religion. Neither atheism nor sport are religions but they could sometimes be like a religion, i.e. when they are followed with a religious fervour. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

"Religion is generally defined to be an organisation that has a belief in a supernatural deity" by lazy people who don't study it, and that doesn't even fit your own explanation that polytheism is a type of religion. Michael is right, and yours and Bugs's comments are strange and unhelpful. If you are unaware of atheistic religions, then you could just not comment.

Michael, I don't know any atheistic religions other than those mentioned, but Unitarian Universalism can sometimes be an essentially agnostic religion if that helps. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Religio is a Latin word that originally referred to proper conduct toward the divine ("gods"). See Religion in ancient Rome for the original matter to which the word referred. This entered the vernacular languages—hence English "religion"/"religiun"—with the same basic meaning. So, it should not be considered strange that the concept of religion is intertwined with the notion of deities. That does not mean that the word has not been applied to practices and groups that only otherwise bear similarities to Ancient Greco-Roman religion, including Christianity. Understanding family resemblance may be important here. Many practices and ideologies which are nontheistic and which are sometimes called "religions" in English were not called "religions" by those who founded and first developed them. For example, Taoism was not called a "religion" in Chinese, as "religion" was not a word in Chinese. I don't want to say anything more about Taoism, before I put my foot in my mouth. Whether a nontheistic practice or ideology may not be considered a religion on that basis alone is a question of word usage for English speakers. Some may maintain that religions deal with the divine. That's not lazy, that's just having a normal usage of a word that is nonetheless different from others'.

Nontheistic_religions gives examples from Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Jainism.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's distinguish between "atheistic" and "non-theistic". Non-theistic means characterized by the absence or rejection of theism or any belief in a personal god or gods. [bolding mine] From the same article, atheism is one subset of non-theism: Strong or positive atheism is the positive belief that a god does not exist. Someone who does not think about the existence of a deity may be termed a weak or negative atheist, or more specifically implicitly atheist. I think that when people use the word "atheistic" they usually mean the stronger version, explicitly believing that no gods exist. Buddhism certainly does not require a disbelief in any god, so it is better to call it non-theistic, not atheistic. On the other hand, many Buddhists do believe in gods, despite that not being a central feature of the religion as a whole. And Atethnekos is absolutely right in saying Some may maintain that religions deal with the divine. That's not lazy, that's just having a normal usage of a word that is nonetheless different from others'. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Depending on your definition of 'religion', 'god', and 'include' things like humanism or Scientology could be considered religion without a god. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

And that's why I say that Atheism is like a religion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Some forms of atheism certainly resemble/are religions. Atheism in general, however, has no organization, so it fails on that point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

See American Atheists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That's described as a non-profit civil rights organisation, not any kind of religion. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Most successful parent-offspring pair ever

I'd like to exclude rulers such as Phil and Al, as the child gets an unfair advantage right from the start. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

How do you define "successful", and what is your yardstick to determine what is more or less successful? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Mary and Jesus have had a pretty good run so far. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

In golf, Old Tom Morris and Young Tom Morris. UK Football: maybe Tony Hateley and Mark Hateley, although Frank Lampard senior and Frank Lampard junior would count too. Harry Redknapp and Jamie Redknapp probably tops either, as Harry is a very successful manager. No doubt more will be added to this list. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Since we're all getting in on the act before waiting for the OP to clarify his question: it would be hard to beat the Bach family for musical fecundity spanning a number of generations. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

In race car driving, there is the Andretti family. In baseball, there are Ken Griffey Sr. and Jr. In acting there are numerous family 'dynasties' such as Martin Sheen and his sons Charlie and Emilio. The Redgraves (Michael Redgrave, Lynn Redgrave, Vanessa Redgrave, et al). The Fondas (Peter Fonda, Jane Fonda, et al). Dismas|^(talk) 11:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Though I try to forget them often, I guess I succeeded this time... The Bush family... George H. W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush. Both, so called, "leaders of the free world". Dismas|^(talk) 11:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Graham and Damon Hill? In science, Nobel Prize winning father-and-sons can be found here, along with mother-and-daughter success in the form of Marie Curie and Irene Joliot-Curie (who was also the daughter of a successful father). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Why restrict to a "pair"? A parent can have more than one notable child. In the Grace family, not only is it true that "Fourteen members of the family played first-class cricket, with brothers WG, EM and Fred Grace all going on to play Test cricket for England", but, in the first generation, the founder of the dynasty and all five of his sons at least played first-class cricket. --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Whilst the youngest managed a department store - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Again in cricket, probably the best in New Zealand was the Hadlee dynasty: Walter, Sir Richard and Dayle; also Lance and Chris Cairns. In England there was George Gunn and his son, also George. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Whereas there are 3 generations of a family who played for different countries: George and Ronald Headley played for the West Indies, while Dean played for England. Two generations played for different countries here: Kepler and Riki Wessels, although to date Wessels junior has never played international cricket. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

In classical Music you have Johann Sebastian Bach and Johann Christian Bach. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

See above. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Then there's Johann Strauss I and Johann Strauss II, Also, of course, Leopold Mozart begot, trained, and touted around Europe Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Alansplodge (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Pitt the Elder and Pitt the Younger? --Dweller (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

In movie terms, maybe Sly Stallone and Jackie Stallone, or Kirk and Michael Douglas, or Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks Jr. Maybe even the Cusack family. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

In land and water speed records, Malcolm Campbell and his son Donald Campbell, and they both raced in cars and boats called "Bluebird". Donald's daughter Gina Campbell held the women's world water speed record from 1984 to 1993 in "Bluebird II". Alansplodge (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Never knew there were so many Nobel connections. If I had to choose, I'd go with the Pitts. As for the Bushes, I did specify successful, right? George W.: yecch. Thanks all. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you did specify successful, but my first response was to ask you what exactly you meant by that, and how you rank success. You seem to be equating "well-liked" with "successful". Is that your benchmark? Does getting to be President of the United States for 8 years, something that millions of people can only dream of, not count for anything in the success stakes? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Dubya was so "successful" his own party didn't want to be associated with him in the last round of elections. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The "Gurus of How-To", Alvin and Lawrence Ubell, as heard on the Leonard Lopate Show. Here is a link to an audio sample. Bus stop (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

How many people die per year in the World?

Is it possible to know?. Thank. Kotjap (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly, but a good estimate can be obtained by multiplying World population by Mortality rate. Dbfirs 11:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Q: How many people die every year?
During 2008, an estimated 57 million people died.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

... and multiplying my links gives about 59 million for 2012. Dbfirs 08:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Is honor important in your culture?

I'm Japanese and it seems to be all. It's one of the causes for the high rate of suicides too. One example, the father of Tsutomu Miyazaki couldn't pay for his defense and threw himself into a river. In WWII several military personnel also committed suicide. Why is honor so important? Kotjap (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Honor used to be very important in western culture (see: Duel)... less so today. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article about honor which provides some insight. "Why" questions are fiendishly hard to provide definitive references for, but if we're going to attempt to answer it, my best guess is that honor is closely tied to concepts of "integrity" and "trustworthiness" and "reputation". That is, people who have honor are generally regarded as being able to be relied on; someone without honor cannot necessarily be relied on. There are, of course, different cultural opinions as to which characteristics are considered "honorable" in a person, but I imagine that the definition is closely tied to reliability in context of that culture. For example, someone "honorable" in a military culture would be able to be trusted not to run in the face of battle and to face death without hesitation, while someone "honorable" in an academic setting would be expected to not cheat on tests and to cite their sources in research (as we find in various honor codes at universities). Chivalry was an honor code devised to keep the medieval European knight class from raping and pillaging everyone in sight. So, there are lots of concepts of honor, and lots of different manifestations of it, but they all seem generally tied to reputation and trustworthiness. People who have violated "honor" aren't considered trustworthy in the context of where they violated their honor, which can have a highly negative impact on their standing in their culture. --Jayron32 14:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

And honor means something else in a criminal context, a willingness to avenge your compatriots. StuRat (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Suicide in Japan provides you with more information about the epidemics in Japan. However, even if it's true that the rate in Japan is pretty high, I wouldn't say that a different honor concept is one of its causes. The causes of suicide are rooted in many factors including psychiatric disorders, drug misuse, psychological states, cultural, family and social situations, and genetics. For illustrating the importance of this last factor (genetics), observe that Japan and Korea, on the one hand, and Hungary and Finland, on the other, share both genes and a high suicide rate. An employment system that doesn't give a second chance (like the Japanese seems to be) could also contribute significantly to it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

In 19th century fiction, British Army officers who had been accused (and knew that they were guilty) of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman" would be allowed access to their revolver and be expected to "do the decent thing" (ie shoot themselves in the head). Whether this actually happened in real life, I don't know. The idea of a ship's captain "going down with his ship" is related. One big difference between Japan and the west is that suicide is forbidden for Christians, and in the UK, it was illegal to attempt suicide until the Suicide Act 1961. In earlier times, the legal concept of felo de se meant that those who killed themselves were regarded as common felons. In Japan however, there was the centuries-old tradition of sepukku which was seen as rather noble. Yukio Mishima famously staged his own exit in this way as recently as 1970. Alansplodge (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Off the top of my head I can think of one notable Austrian officer - Alfred Redl - who, having been uncovered as a traitor, asked to be left alone with his pistol revolver and took his own life. (This is kind of skipped over in the WP article, which refers only to suicide, but is stated explicitly in several of the linked sources). Valiantis (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record, let's be clear that your genetic argument for similarities in suicide rates between Japan/Korea and Hungary/Finland is pure speculation, no research supports it (which I know of, in any event) and experts in the relevant fields would be prone to tear down that argument as unlikely (or at the very least unprovable) for any number of reasons. There is of course a nice body of work investigating a genetic link for propensity to commit suicide within a given family, but that's a far cry away. Snow (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Enough research supports a link between genetics and suicide. It doesn't matter if it's a family or a country. Obviously a country is less homogeneous than a family, but the link is still there in a country. Japan and Korea are certainly much more homogeneous genetically than the US, some traits will be there more accentuated. See [18], [19] or [20]. BTW, appealing to imaginary experts, who would supposedly tear down my argument is rather a non-argument. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I would point out that Hungary and Finland are not especially close genetically. [21] Also, the genetic diversity within a given population is almost always greater than the mean genetic difference from a neighboring population (for example, the Chinese and the Koreans), so it is difficult to justify an argument for a genetic basis for behavior linked to a given culture. Occam's razor strongly argues that a behavior linked to a given culture has cultural explanations. This is not to deny that the genetics of individuals and families in a given cultural context may predispose them more toward a given behavior than others who share that cultural context. Marco polo (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Further to my note about suicide being culturally abhorrent in the west, the opposite was true of the closely related concept of self-sacrifice. Generations of British schoolchildren were brought up on the story of Antarctic explorer Captain Oates, who walked out of his tent in a blizzard to meet his certain death and thereby give his companions a chance of survival - he had frostbite and couldn't walk fast enough. Alansplodge (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

In the UK, suicide used to be illegal, and, ironically, you would have the death penalty for it. The British idea of 'honour' is to face every challenge until you die, either by exhaustion, natural causes, or by being killed. Suicide is not a noble death for us. We consider it cowardly, unless it serves a purpose, as in Alan's story above. See the film 'Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence' for some more insight into the British idea of 'honour' compared to the Japanese point of view. 'Bridge Over the River Kwai' is another one. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Suicide was illegal in England until 1961, but before then the penalty was imprisonment, not hanging. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't pay too much attention to The Bridge on the River Kwai - even Alec Guiness thought it was anti-British (it was based on a book written by a Frenchman). The real life British senior officer, Philip Toosey, was rather more honourable than his screen portrayal. Alansplodge (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Judith, prison was the punishment only for attempted suicide. The punishment for successful suicide was far worse. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Correct in medieval terms, when a successful trip to the hereafter was a daily concern. Suicides were "punishable by forfeiture of property to the king and what was considered a shameful burial – typically with a stake through his heart and with a burial at a crossroad. Burials for felo de se typically took place at night, with no mourners or clergy present, and the location was often kept a secret by the authorities". Burial in unconsecrated ground was thought to be an impediment to ressurection on the Day of Judgement. Alansplodge (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Nazi sleepwear ?

In movies where German soldiers were surprised in their sleep, they were generally wearing boxers and t-shirts (or maybe long underwear in cold weather). Is this actually what soldiers wore at night ? Specifically, I'm wondering if they were encouraged to sleep in their clothes, to reduce time to respond to an attack. StuRat (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about the Heer, but up to and including World War II, the British Army didn't issue anything as effete as pyjamas. Soldiers were expected to sleep in the coarse, collarless, button-up shirts[22] that they wore during the day, and nothing else according to my dad (Royal Engineers and REME 1939 to 1946). I suppose that you couldn't really show a lot of bare-arsed Germans in a family movie though. Apparently the RAF did wear pyjamas, a source of great amusement to the common soldiery. Whether the intent was to be ready-for-anything or just to save cash, I have no idea. More likely, it was a tradition going back to when every working man slept in his day shirt. Alansplodge (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

RAF pyjamas had some operational utility, as described by a Bomber Command Lancaster rear gunner, required to spend many hours in an unheated aircraft at 30000 feet or so: Everybody had their own way of keeping warm. I wore everything that I could pile on, including a pair of pyjamas.←86.186.142.172 (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Since their state of undress is used to convey the surprise, being bare-assed would be even more effective, although it might make the audience wonder "what exactly do those Nazi's do in their bunkers at night which requires them to remove their underpants ?". StuRat (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

After a bit of a search, I found "Undershirt/pullover service/sleep shirt (gray or olive drab)" listed as part of the Modell 1936 German uniform.[23] We have an article; World War II German uniform, but it doesn't mention undershirts. I'd be surprised if they were wearing actual t-shirts though, as I believe these were an American innovation. Alansplodge (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

How would that vary from a T-shirt ? Long sleeves ? StuRat (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Here are photos of the German Army undergarment. It is considerably more concealing than its British counterpart. Marco polo (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Aha, well done! I only managed to find an M39 Swedish shirt which is offered for sale to reenactors wishing to dress up as German soldiers. Alansplodge (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well done. They even had their names sewn in ?

I sure wouldn't button that top button if I was sleeping in it, or I'd feel constricted, like I had a tie on. StuRat (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Why wheren't Ike & Louis St. Laurent friends ?

Hello Learned Ones ! I found (in Sleeping with the Enemy (The Simpsons)) that Ike & Canadian Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent were enemies . How can it be ? I thought they were both pro-NATO (or at least it is what we think here...) . Anyway, as it is Martin Prince who speaks, it must be true, musn't it ? ( BTW , though being ennemies, I don't think they ever slept together...Or did they ?...We lately learnt some queer things about one of USA's most famous president, so... Thanks beforehand for your answer Arapaima (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have done quite a bit of searching and have not found any evidence of a bad relationship between Eisenhower and St. Laurent from any source other than the Simpsons. You can't consider a fictional cartoon a reliable source on this subject. There is no particular reason why they should have been "friends". St. Laurent was a sophisticated, bilingual, liberal Easterner trained as a lawyer; Eisenhower a conservative Midwesterner trained as a soldier. It would have been a bit surprising if they were personal friends. Both men were fairly diplomatic, so it is difficult to know how they really felt about each other, but the evidence suggests a polite and somewhat businesslike relationship. See this letter, for example. Marco polo (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You fight off just one attempted annexation and they never let you live it down. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks C.Fiend & Marco. Next time I hear in a cartoon that Castro & Nixon were friends at 1st sight starting in april 59, I won't beleieve it. T;y. Arapaima (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Psychology - what really is going on when people say that they are "saved"?

Psychologically speaking, what really is going on when people, specifically certain Christians, who claim that they are "saved" in the most enthusiastic tone of voice? They may say, "Well, before I became a Christian, I did blah, blah, blah, and then I was saved!". It seems that they are describing themselves as their former selves and then some "miracle happen here" and then their new selves without really specifying on the actual seemingly miraculous event in their lives. Is it a psychological trance, emotional experience, having high levels of dopamine, the decision of the individual to make a life-changing moment and willingness to go about doing it, or something else? 140.254.121.34 (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I think it may be referring to what they read in the Book of Acts, which says something along the lines of "speaking in tongues" and somebody thought the disciples were drunk when they claimed that they were not drunk, and then masses of people converted according to that book. I guess the experience just means "getting yourself drunk or high"? 140.254.121.34 (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. — Lomn 22:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The concept of salvation is covered by the Wikipedia article titled Salvation. From a Christian point of view, a person who is earnestly Christian believes that sin condemns them to hell, and that salvation comes in the form of being absolved from the consequences of their sin via God's grace. Different Christians will come to a different understanding of their own salvation, but their enthusiasm is likely due to their understanding of the seriousness of the salvation itself. From the psychological point of view, religious conversion itself comes to some people as a form of epiphany, though there is a wide variance of how people experience this. Some people may never have a moment of epiphany and may instead come to a gradual understanding of their salvation; for others it can be a singular event. --Jayron32 22:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Have you read our article on Salvation (Christianity)? That's the core concept being discussed. As a general observation, I find that the specific phrase usage also ties to the use of the phrase "born again". Our article notes that use of that phrase, at least within the US, is most closely tied to "Evangelical, black, and Latino Protestants", but note that "Evangelical" in that context is tricky to pin down. Our Evangelicalism article attempts to address this, and I personally feel pretty good saying that the usage above has ties to (but is by no means exclusive to) Pentecostalism. So, there are cultural markers here as to what's being indicated, but the exact experience is going to vary person to person. Why not ask the person in question when you hear them say that? I strongly suspect that public use of the phrase is also a strong cultural marker in favor of their willingness to talk your ear off on the subject. — Lomn 22:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

There are two different times to which you refer. Time 1 is the time when they were supposedly saved. Time 2 is the time when they are enthusiastically recounting Time 1. I think you mean to ask about Time 1.

There are number of ways one might describe the event at Time 1 psychologically. Any psychologist might describe it in terms of beliefs: For example, at the specious present of Time 1 they believe that now they follow God's guidance, when previously they did not. Or, at Time 1 they believe that now they are aware that God loves them, when previously they did not. The beliefs would be different for different people. Freudian psychologists might describe it in terms of expressions of the unconscious mind. There is a fairly recent book by Michael Argyle published by Routledge called Psychology and Religion: An Introduction. Chapter 4 in particular, "The extent and varieties of religious experience", may be of interest to you. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your typical person who speaks this way believes that people who don't believe in Christianity are in trouble both now and in the afterlife (see Jayron's links) and that the way out is believing in Christianity. More specifically, such a person typically believes that Jesus was punished for everyone's sins except the sin of not believing in Christianity, but that this doesn't help you unless you believe in Christianity, in which case you'll not be punished because you "depended on Jesus' actions". For someone who believes this, "getting saved" is the moment when they choose to believe in Christianity and depend on Jesus' actions. You'll not often hear this phrase used by people in some parts of the evangelical movement, since their soteriology (their interpretation of the Bible's teachings about salvation) is different in ways that are probably too complicated to understand if you're not already familiar with Protestant Christianity. Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Rather than asking or saying what 'people like that' do, one could just ask one. The article epiphany mentioned above seems the only relevant answer, and one need not be Christian to have had one. μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting response. I attended a Bible studies program at my school once a week. It was supposed to serve as a devotional exercise for all Christians. Before the session, the students usually held a prayer, requesting the Holy Spirit to guide them during the Bible Study. During this time, I just dozed a bit on the table. After each session, I gained some ethical wisdom, a suggestion of a certain lifestyle, or some different way of thinking about the world - something that deserves contemplation and reflection later, throughout the whole week. The moment I gained something new was the same moment I would say that I achieved "spiritual enlightenment". It's the "Aha! I get it!" feeling inside that makes me want to attend the Bible studies sessions every week to obtain the same sort of "spiritual enlightenment". I am not sure how one can conflate "I was saved!" to "Oh, I get it! Eureka!" because the former experience seems to imply a past event that one reminisces, and the latter experience seems to imply an ongoing series of events in the specious present. If one additionally believes in free will, then that one will probably say "I will be 'saved'!" as well as "I am being saved!". If one additionally does not believe in free will, then one will probably just say "I am being saved!" and then add "But I do not know when I will be saved again. That is out of my control." From my experience, epiphany just doesn't fit with what it is meant by the term "I was saved!". Sneazy (talk)

Yes, I didn't want to go into it at length, but epiphany in the intellectual sense seems to have a component of new conceptual comprehension, whereas I suspect the religious one may literally have the feeling of being saved, like seeing a boat coming to your rescue when you have bee lost at sea. I'd still want to question someone in depth and in person to glean what they mean. μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's possible. It's hard to say for sure. As Jayron has noted, the feeling of being saved is widely variable from person to person. Therefore, epiphany in the intellectual sense may also mean spiritual enlightenment or the possible feeling of being saved. Sneazy (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The "being rescued at sea" is closer to elation (joy, but not due to learning). "Being saved" doesn't even necessarily involve that much emotion. Some people just do it out of tradition, or peer pressure. What's being referred to above really is an epiphany moment, where someone makes that change from intellectually understanding their faith to becoming emotionally affected by it. It's the difference between "oh, I understand that now" and "it suddenly all makes sense!" The latter would be an epiphany moment, because it's not just understanding, it's the combination of emotional reactions with the understanding that really makes an epiphany. That "Eureka!" moment isn't just understanding, it's the joy of understanding. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think another relevant article is Religious conversion. The sect I used to belong to used the word "converted" in preference to "saved". Also spiritual enlightenment. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It just means they are happier now than they were before. Same as watching a Pink Floyd concert, or watching Monty Python, or the usual Hollywood stuff. They now have other things to concentrate on, rather than the various things they believe they were saved from. Most people who join a religious sect or order or religion do so in order to gain a sense of interaction and safety with others, and not because of a belief in a God. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. This article and Wikipedia's Religion and happiness both seem to support the notion. Sneazy (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• There's also temporal lobe epilepsy and the religious experience. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

God helmet. Seems to work for some, not for others. 20.137.162.50 (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

In the time and place where I grew up (conservative Australia, 1950s and 60s) it was fairly common for hard core adherents to say "I have seen God" or "I have seen Jesus". I've never understood what they really meant (it certainly didn't make him visible to me), but I'm guessing it was something along the same lines as is being discussed here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

February 26

Umm al Fahm Muslim Arab city in Israel

Is Umm al Fahm the only city in Israel that 100% Arab and Muslim?--Donmust90 (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Umm al-Fahm says "nearly all of whom are Arab citizens of Israel." It says "nearly all", not "all". 75.185.79.52 (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

@Donmust, I suggest you also look up an article here for your interest - [24]. To answer the original question, yes, the city is only 100% Arab, out of whom 99.7% are Muslims and the other 0.3% follow other beliefs. Hope this article helps and aids your general knowledge! I am present here (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Depends on how strict your definition of city and your definition of 100% Arab and Muslim are. There are very many Arab towns, villages, etc., especially up north. Arab localities in Israel Gzuckier (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Israeli ballot paper letters

What is the maximum number of letters can an Israeli party use on its ballot paper?--Donmust90 (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

I am assuming that you mean political party and letters as in characters. Can you specify which political party in Israel? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The Israelis certainly do have a lot of characters on the ballot, don't they ? :-) StuRat (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was not completely wrong. I did a quick search on Google and I came up with Elections in Israel. Israeli government actually uses Hebrew characters to denote the political parties, one letter for one corresponding party. So, the number of letters that one party may use on its own ballot is one, and the number of letters that one party may vote for is uncertain. I am not sure if the Israeli government allows multiple votes or self-voting (voting for your party). 75.185.79.52 (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Much of that post is rather incomprehensible to me, I must say. Individual voters choose the ballot papers and put them in the envelopes. They are representing only themselves, not any party. If a voter happens to also be a politician, it would be crazy to require them to vote for some party other than their own party. That's if such a law could be enforced. Which it can't be, because it's a secret ballot. In any case, it would be Israeli law at work, not some diktat of the current Israeli government. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The response just above Jack's by User 75.185.79.52 misstates part of what's in Elections_in_Israel#Voting_method: "The slips are printed with the "ballot letters" of the party (between one and three Hebrew or Arabic letters)..." (emphasis mine) Established parties retain their assigned letters; new parties request up to three letters (order of their choice) from the Israeli Central Elections Committee among what's available - i.e. not already in use or reserved. Look at the tables on that page: the notes explain the meanings of certain letters or combinations thereof. I don't know of letters or combinations being suppressed as having scurrilous meanings (as has been the case with "vanity plates" for automobiles in the U.S.A.). As for the balloting process: the voter is given one envelope, then goes to a curtained-off stand on which there's a tray with horizontal and vertical dividers making compartments the size of a ballot slip. Supplies of the ballot slips are available for each party, plus blanks. The voter chooses a slip, inserts it in the envelope, and inserts this in the slot of the ballot box - all under the supervision of an appointed supervisory panel with representatives of three different parties, at least one a party not generally represented by voters of that polling place. After the polls close, this committee opens the envelopes, tallies the slips, and reports the results. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

something to remember DHL by

I'm well aware DHL now only ships to and from international destinations. But I'm interested in buying some DHL mementoes (ie. plush toys, lapel pins, etc.) Where's a good place to find those types of things? I don't want to order from outside the USA.142.255.103.121 (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

former airline alliance member

Which airline alliance was Pan Am part of?142.255.103.121 (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Googling [pan american airlines alliance] turns up some possibilities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

There are so many of them. It's hard to figure it out. I'd appreciate some help, please. Thank you.142.255.103.121 (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

ethics

in ethics, which one should be the basis of evrything, to do what is right or to assess if anyone is harmed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTLOAFH (talk • contribs) 10:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Why would there be any difference? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's easy to contrive scenarios where many people would consider the two mutually exclusive, but I would agree that there's an interesting related question of "should there be any difference?" It might be a useful subtopic for the OP to work into his essay. — Lomn 14:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The core problem is that "anyone harmed" is quantifiable, whereas "what is right" is a matter of opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

In the context of debates about systems of ethics, "'anyone harmed' is quantifiable" sounds a lot like a matter of opinion. ;) There's also the problem of reaching an agreed-upon definition of "harm" (or, possibly, "anyone"). — Lomn 18:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You have at least the possibility of being able to count the number harmed, e.g. the number killed and maimed by some action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

sounds a bit like an essay question asking you to compare and contrast Consequentialism with Kantianism that's where I'd start anyway. --_nonsense ferret 11:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, although the article ethics gives the more precise term deontological ethics, of which Kant's system is probably the classic example. If you (the OP) refine the question, you might get a deeper answer. We can't say which system is better. IBE (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Related to this is the concept of the victimless crime. StuRat (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

What is right can only be defined by if anyone was harmed. Granted this takes time and trial and error in the beginning. Once you have established what you believe to be right based on the trial and error and assess if anyone was harmed, it becomes like a classic decision analysis tree to hone in on the good-er. you need historic results to determine what is good. so I would say assessing harm is more important than doing good, because you cant know if you are doing good without assessing harm. There is also the cases of the victimless crime and its counter-part crimeless victim, but without the assessment fixing these is difficult.165.212.189.187 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No, that is definitely not the only way of defining right. A lot of people are convinced it was right to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on the grounds that it brought the war with Japan to a quick end and saved many more lives than it cost in the short term. You don't have to agree with those people, but you can't say their definition of right is invalid just because it doesn't square with yours. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

E.g., if you could eliminate cancer for everybody forever, but it required you to torture a baby.... Gzuckier (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

...Saw VIII. OK rightness, or how "right" something is relatively speaking. My emphasis was supposed to be on the fact that as I said several times that you cant know how right something is without the assessment after some sample size or trial and error. do you disagree with that?165.212.189.187 (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Could I administer the baby benzos? μηδείς (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Dont you know that the cancer being eliminated is directly related to the degree of mental anguish inflicted on the little one?165.212.189.187 (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If you can work out a way that torturing babies will cure cancer, let me know the mechanism and I will improve it. μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Not torturing, but "killing babies" (abortion) might, by providing undifferentiated stem cells for research. StuRat (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That's like a decade out of date, Stu--it's easy enough to make stem cells from the subject himself, no worry that one will be killed by an allergic reaction to some foreign murdered baby's phenotype. μηδείς (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I rearranged this to make the thread clearer - at least in structure if not content. Sorry if I've misread who said what to whom, or if I don't really know how to indent myself, but I think it's right now. My own two cents is that we're in a long-winded debate, and 165 is begging the question. The whole point is that deontological ethicists would disagree with these statements. They are reasonable statements, but that isn't the point. IBE (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

NB: What does "Saw VIII" mean in 165's post? Any takers? IBE (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe something to do with Saw (film series)? --TammyMoet (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

They're only up to VI, according to our article. I was thinking I had missed something obvious. I'm now thinking 165 is doing some unethical experiment with us, to see how much he can mess with our heads. Maybe only he can answer this one. IBE (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if you could see me I'm touching my nose reght now. I don't pay much attention to horror films (nightly news is enough for me) so I was not sure what number they were on but I knew it was up there over 5 or so.165.212.189.187 (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

In any case, you're right - the latest is Saw 3D, which is really Saw VII, so you have come up with Saw VIII ... it was just a little opaque for me at the time. IBE (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

And , a-thank you for conceeding that I am "right".165.212.189.187 (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

From the indentation level, that seems to be a response to my post above. If you think what I wrote was a concession you were right, please read it again - because it was the exact opposite of that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Third Servile War 73-71BC

Are there any good books which account the events of the third servile war in detail? Clover345 (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Third Servile War#References has LOTS of good leads. Try some of those. --Jayron32 14:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Lega Nord, National Front, British National Party, Geert Wilders party regions strongholds

I know it may sound familiar in the previous question about stronghold but this one is different. Which regions have been giving votes to Lega Nord since 1992? Which municipalities have been giving votes to Party of Freedom (PVV) since 2006? Which departments have been giving votes to Marine Le Pen's National Front since 1974? Which cities or counties or regions in UK have been giving votes to British National Party since 1983?--Donmust90 (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

This site will help with the UK answer. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

UK Respect Party councillors

Who are the 7 councillors in UK that are members of Respect Party?--Donmust90 (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

In Bradford there are 5: Alyas Karmani, Mohammed Shabbir, Ishtiaq Ahmed, Ruqqaya Collector and Faisal Khan. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC) And 2 in Tower Hamlets: Fozol Miah and Harun Miah. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

And the London Borough of Tower Hamlets has two: Councillor Fozol Miah (Respect) - Spitalfields and Banglatown ward and Councillor Harun Miah (Respect) - Shadwell. Alansplodge (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Was the Great_Sphinx_of_Giza based on the sphinx in Oedipus in Sphinx#Greek_traditions or Sphinx#Egyptian_sphinxes?

Was the Great_Sphinx_of_Giza based on the sphinx in Oedipus in Sphinx#Greek_traditions or Sphinx#Egyptian_sphinxes? Or any other kind of sphinx? Also when Thutmose_IV had a dream dream about the Giza sphinx it said it's name was Harmakhis. Wasn't Harmakhis falcon-headed and what did it have to with sphinx? Venustar84 (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain the Great Sphinx predates the Oedipus story by centuries, and that Sophocles based his Sphinx on the well known statue at Giza, and/or on the Egyptian myth which would have been well known to the Greeks at the time. Sophocles wrote in the 5th century BC, while the Great Sphinx of Giza dates from almost 2000 years before that. In other words, the difference in time between the Oedipus story and the building of the Great Sphinx is the same as the time difference between now and the time of Christ. So, no, the Sphinx was not based on the story from Oedipus. Even the earliest parts of the Oedipus story date from the time of Homer, which puts it in the 12th century BC at the absolute earliest, or still 1300 years after the construction of the Great Sphinx statue. --Jayron32 23:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

In addition, our Sphinx article reinforces the differences between the Egyptian and Greek versions; "Unlike the Greek sphinx which was a woman, the Egyptian sphinx is typically shown as a man (an androsphinx). In addition, the Egyptian sphinx was viewed as benevolent in contrast to the malevolent Greek version and was thought of as a guardian often flanking the entrances to temples." It doesn't mention that the Greek sphinx also had a pair of eagle's wings, which the Egyptian sphinx lacked. See also Colorado University Classics - The SphinxAlansplodge (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

right on red turn

the other day while driving, i came to an intersection in which my lane had the ability to turn right or go straight and the lane next to me could go right only. there were red lights displayed but separate from the lights there was a lone green right arrow. i was wanting to turn right so i would not have a hard time merging into the far left lane from the far right lane. so while across from my lane there were the red lights and the vehicle in front of me turned right and since he/she did, i did to. what i would like to know is if my turn was legal. if it helps, i was driving away from the Walmart on sawdust road in spring Texas. so if you know the intersection im talking about please answer. it would be most appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.22.114 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the Texas driving manual, it says that right turn on red is legal after stopping. This site says that when there are two right turn lanes, you may legally turn right-on-red from either lane (search for §544.007) unless there is specific signage that prohibits it. If you have any questions about actions you have taken specifically, which you may be held liable for, seek the advice of a lawyer. --Jayron32 23:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

When two lanes turn, each typically has a target lane they can turn into. So, the outside turning lane must go to the near target lane and the inside turning lane must go to the far target lane. Turning on red is legal, but turning into the far lane requires that both the near and far lanes be clear. StuRat (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Solution(s) to the is-ought problem

What are proposed solutions to the is-ought problem that have 'conquered' it? --Melab±1 ☎ 23:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

See the "responses" section in the article you just linked. --Jayron32 23:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That any claim that there "is" a reason that you "ought" to take the dilemma seriously is self-contradictory? μηδείς (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not see it as self-contradictory. The article and fact-value distinction don't give many specifics. It seems like it is not taken into consideration much by philosophers today (Ayn Rand is an exception, who heavily harped on it). I'm also trying to find a basis for foundationalism. --Melab±1 ☎ 03:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean as a basis for Foundationalism? (Rand, since you mention her, held that both foundationalism and coherence theory are true--but that's epistemology. Rand's ethics are logically consequentialist, although she does portray anyone who disagrees with her own specific values as inherently evul.) David Kelley's Evidence of the Senses gives what you might be looking for in a basis for foundationalism. μηδείς (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think R M Hare's universalizability argument is a solution, although I've been assured that better minds than mine see the flaws in it. Henry^Flower 10:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

February 27

Odyssey

Why was Odysseus the King of Ithaca, (even before he left for Troy?) although his father Laertes was still alive? His son Telemachus never became king, even when some thought Odysseus was probably dead, and I gather that Odysseus, after he returned and killed the Suitors, planned to remain king.thanksRich (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Our articles claim that Laertes was "King of the Cephallenians", of which Ithaca was only one part. Rmhermen (talk) 05:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

As for his son not becoming king, they seemed to have a system rather similar to the modern one, where a missing person had to be missing for a fixed length of time before they were legally declared dead. However, unlike now, a woman with a dead husband was forced to either remarry or lose her land, as a woman alone was not allowed to hold land. Thus the suitors, who were after her, and the land. StuRat (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

They seemed to have? How do you know that? Is that your "deduction"? -Richard L. Peterson199.33.32.40 (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Women not being able to hold land was a standard feature of patrilineal societies, at the time. StuRat (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Richard is saying that this is a myth, with several lessons more important than the filing of a missing persons report. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you know anything about "the time" to say that women were not able to hold land? Are you aware that "the time" was probably the very late Mycenean bronze age or the Greek Dark Ages, from which we have no written records? The text of the Odyssey strongly indicates you are wrong. Books 1 and 2 are focused on Telemachus trying to get his mothers' suitors to leave the house, and Odysseus refuses to "send your mother away, and bid her marry the man of her own and of her father's choice". There is certainly no mention of Penelope being required by law to remarry, and if she was in danger of losing her estate (actually Telemachus' estate), Telemachus would certainly not vow to massacre the suitors in the name of preventing the suitors from wrecking the estate! --140.180.255.158 (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Not having written records doesn't mean we don't know anything about how their society was organized. For one, we have the oral tradition of the Iliad and Odyssey, which both describe a patrilineal society. There is also surviving art and architecture from that era. StuRat (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

has israel ever considered buying land for somewhere else for palestinians?

it is just my understanding but it seems israel has a lot of modern, even high-tech infrastructure and a pretty strong economy. apparently it gets illegal immigrants just coming to work and so forth.

meanwhile, it is asserted that there is almost a two-class system and life is very hard for palestinians there. (just reporting some common assertion).

these two things which would lead me to suggest that israel would be in a position to purchase land somewhere else (cheap and far away) and just give it to any palestinians who want to go there. has it ever considered doing this?

(Yes, I realize that the same argument could be made that surely arab countries such as saudi arabia would be interested in purchasing an israel-sized chunk of the nevada desert and pay for israel to move there - which it would have no interest in doing. But other than the fact that you can't just move city infrastructure, skyscrapers, and the like, it's not my question at present - rather about whether Israel has thought of doing this.) Thanks.

Also let's not get into any debates. We know that some people say israel has a right to live in security. we also know other people say israel is an illegal occupier, an illegal country. my question really isn't about any of these things. de facto, israel has money and my question is whether it has ever considered spending any of this on some land somewhere else. thanks. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Like Madagascar, for instance? alteripse (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well they do buy land but Palestinians don't like it because of the consequences - they then stick one of their settlements into the middle of a Palestinian area and eventually try and drive the rest out. Does Palestinian land laws answer your question? Dmcq (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Your "Madagascar Plan" article is first of all extremely charged politically, and secondly, wouldn't have been voluntary. I don't mean "dump the palestinians on boats somewhere." I mean, buy some land the size of israel somewhere else (nevada desert, etc) for any of them who *wants* it, and just pay for a relocation for any of them who wants it. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought that Madagascar plan was quite an appropriate response to the question. What makes you think the Palestinians would do such a thing willingly after reading the article I listed there? How would Israelis feel do you think about buying such land and then tossing a coin and if they lose the Israelis can go and live in the middle of the Nevada desert instead and leave the Palestinians alone? Dmcq (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That's shear speculation. There is neither a Madagascar Plan for the Palestinians, nor a Nevada plan for the Jewish Israelis. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Moving millions of Palestinians far away seems to be like creating a new state of Israel somewhere else, with the same problems. Had the Jewish people established their state in another territory, there would certainly be some conflicts with people who felt entitle to their place of land, whether the local government got paid or not. Anyway, there were indeed plans to integrate the Palestinians into Jordan and Egypt, known as the Three-state solution. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• The short answer to your question is "yes." Buying land from Arabs was a common way that Jews expanded into Palestine before 1948, with some of the prominent land-buying organizations being the Jewish Agency for Palestine and Jewish National Fund. The problem nowadays is twofold. First, pretty much all of the Arabs who remain are the descendants of people who, when offered the chance to sell their land, said, "no, this is our home, we'd rather not sell." Second, after the 1948 war, Israel claimed that the people who fled the war zone had given up their land voluntarily -- a clever move in the short term, maybe, but one that poisoned the whole idea of voluntary land sales ever since. --M@rēino 20:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

See Dar al Islam and Dome of the Rock--the rest is fantasizing. μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

---

91.120.48.242 -- The answer to your literal question is "no", but Israel has repeatedly (over many decades) expressed willingness to pay financial compensation as part of an overall comprehensive and final peace agreement. AnonMoos (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Explorers

Why are some explorers described as 'British', some Scottish, Irish or Welsh? Aren't they all British, apart from Southern Irish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.94.158 (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Please give an example of where you have seen this. --Viennese Waltz 12:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a thorny issue that has been argued over for centuries and will probably not be resolved unless the constituent parts of the Union eventually decide to go their separate ways. The answer is yes they are all British, and yes, they are Scottish, Irish or Welsh. It seems to be less acceptable for English people to assert their Englishness. Irish people from the area now in the Republic could correctly be described as British (ie, citizens of the United Kingdom) from 1801 to 1922, but doing so may well cause offence in some circumstances. Our article Terminology of the British Isles bravely attempts to untangle the problem. Alansplodge (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You might do better on the language desk. Not sure whether this is relevant, but in the UK the word "British" tends to have more positive connotations than the word "English" (e.g. British Army, British Empire, British beef, but English breakfast, English rose, English country garden).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

How do the "English" examples there have anything but positive connotations? Or did you mean the other way round (though I would still question that)? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Depends on the time that you are speaking about, as "Great Britain" as a nation didn't exist until the early 1700s. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Mungo Park (explorer) is described as "British" in the infobox and "Scottish" in the lead sentence of the article... AnonMoos (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Ernest Shackleton gets to be Anglo-Irish (saves any embarrassment about the British/Irish thing) and Robert Falcon Scott's nationality isn't stated at all in the body of the text (shhh.... we don't want to mention that he's English). Alansplodge (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, Scott's one of the good guys. He may have failed to achieve the technical goal of the expedition, but he redeemed himself magnificently by dying in the attempt, and that means he succeeded beyond his wildest expectations. See, if Scott and his team had got home safely after failing to beat Amundsen to the Pole, he'd have been a cause of national disgrace, hardly mentioned in the best circles, and Amundsen would have got all the attention he rightfully deserves. But now, because they all froze to death, Scott's a glorious martyr. We talk of "Scott of the Antarctic", but who's ever heard of "Amundsen of the Antarctic"? He actually died just as grisly and icy a death in the Arctic, but that tale is little told. It clearly is very important for British gentlemen not to win. Tim Henman had the right idea. Andy Murray was doing OK, but he's gone and screwed things up now. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed - the art of Heroic Failure. I was actually making a rather debatable point about the current situation in the UK, where being proud to be Scottish or Welsh is admirable, but being proud to be English suggests that you're a right-wing xenophobe. Alansplodge (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Japan and North Korea relations

When I was a child I lived in Akita Prefecture, and I remember being told by my parents to not trust anyone and to not talk to strangers and to look out for those who speak 'weird'. They referred to the kidnapping of Japaneses by North Korea. My question is, I have two sons who are young adults. Is the risk still present or not? Thank. Kotjap (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I doubt any person alone would be able to defend himself against a group of determined Korean soldiers, no matter what. However, I suppose Japan is better prepared nowadays to detect a rouge submarine invading their waters than back then when some Japanese were kidnapped. There were no kidnappings reported for almost 30 years, at least. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't defend myself against a group of soldiers. Kotjap (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, yes, those rascally rouge submarines! As for Kotjap's concern, is there any way we can know that his parents themselves weren't actually Korean spies? Or whether either of his sons, or even Kotjap himself isn't actually a Korean who stole his identity long ago? μηδείς (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Just follow the instructions. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

What are you both talking about? I can't understand. Kotjap (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Kotjap, They are alluding to the fact that your question is rather odd and if you actually attempt to answer it scientifically there are a multitude of questions to be answered to the point of absurdity (not negatively loaded). a few I have are: have you noticed what you are explaining in your town recently?, do you read the newspaper in your town? how would people on the ref desk know whats going on in your neighborhood better than you?165.212.189.187 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I understand, no of course I know what goes on in my town but I would like to know if at international level the kidnappings of Japanese citizens by North Korea has ended or not. Kotjap (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Why would you think that some guys on the Internet know more about the situation in your neighbourhood than you do? Also, I have never heard of "the kidnappings of Japanese citizens by North Korea" here in the UK. Why do you think we would have heard of it? --TammyMoet (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I've heard of it. I think the way it played out is the reason many have not. At the time of the kidnappings, nobody quite knew where the people went, so it wasn't any more interesting than the million of disappearances around the world each year. Years later, when it came out that the North Koreans had kidnapped those people, the kidnappings themselves were old news. StuRat (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

North Korean abductions of Japanese citizens, already linked above, is the best you'll get, I suppose. There is no way of knowing what the North Koreans are up to in the future. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• If Kotjap wants to know whether or not he's been replaced by a Korean or a British Canadian he should write us a good long spontaneous paragraph in Japanese about something he couldn't have copied from the internet or elsewhere. We have various users here who will be able to determine whether he expresses himself like a full native of his reported age or not. It will be negative evidence, but it should still be reassuring at some level. μηδείς (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have to prove anything, as you don't have to prove anything about your nationality. Kotjap (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You have to admit, it's a bit surprising you were warned about 'kidnapping of Japaneses by North Korea' when you were a child, which would have been before 1977 when the bulk of the known kidnapping of Japanese citizens had begun (although abductions of South Koreans was happening then) let alone were publicly acknowledged. Apparently it was before the policy had even been really developed [25]. More so that the victims were generally in their 20s which fits with the purpose of the kidnappings (there is one known 13 year old). Nil Einne (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Indian and Pakistani Muslims 90-100% places in UK

Are Batley and Savile Town in UK the only places that have dominant Indian and Pakistani Muslim population?--Donmust90 (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Read more carefully: Batley#Demographics has no 90%+ Indian and Pakistani Muslims population. It has like 30%, composed by Indian and Pakistani Muslims. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The person may have misread the 9 as a 3. It's common for people who may have unilateral neglect. Not saying that the OP has it, but such a mistake may be perfectly innocent, not intending to cause harm or distress. 140.254.121.34 (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

British_Pakistanis#Population and British_Indian#Population may be useful to the OP. 140.254.121.34 (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

February 28

Name of "Detective story" book

Hello Helpers! Several years ago I read a brilliant story about a "detective" hired by the Roman Authorities to find out what happened to the 'Lost Legions of Varus'. The setting is around 10 years after his (Varus') total loss of his legions to the Teutonnic tribes on the other side of the Rhein river. I know that the author of this book has written other historic detective stories. I am very interested in those books. Thanks in advance, Andy Hoff, Philippines112.198.64.35 (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it The Iron Hand of Mars perhaps? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an answer for that specific story, but for some writers of Roman-based detective fiction see: Lindsey Davis, Steven Saylor, John Maddox Roberts, David Wishart, and Rosemary Rowe. Zoonoses (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a long list of English language detective novels set in ancient Rome here, but I haven't been able to find any summary similar to the plot described by the OP on it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's surely The Iron Hand of Mars, as Finlay says. The book is part of a series by Lindsey Davis about the detective Marcus Didius Falco (referred to as an "informer") under the reign of Vespasian. Paul B (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Savile Town border map

Is there a map that shows the border of Savile Town of UK?--Donmust90 (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

There is no town, city, or municipality that I can find called "Savile" or "Savile Town" in the UK. There is a Savile Row that is a street in London. It's location can be found using your favorite mapping program (Google Maps, Mapquest, etc.) --Jayron32 03:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This is bad news indeed for the Barber of Savile. You realise you're sending a decent man broke, Jayron, by depriving him of his very conurbation? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Figaro, figaro, fi...ga...ro... --Jayron32 04:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Savile Town is an informal name given to a small area of Dewsbury. It doesn't have formally defined borders. Rojomoke (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There you go. Can't believe I missed that. I swear I searched and only found the street. --Jayron32 05:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It helped that the OP had already asked about it two questions up. Rojomoke (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

cruise line alliances

It's understood there could be a few cruise line alliances. One example is World's Leading Cruise Lines. Carnival Cruise Lines and Costa Cruises are part of it. Which cruise line alliance is Norwegian Cruise Line and Royal Caribbean International part of?142.255.103.121 (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni

Were there sanctions against Iran for hanging two gay kids who had only had consensual sex despite the false claim of rape that the Iranian government gave once the case became known the rest of the World?. Kotjap (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

No and as the article says it is not entirely clear that it was consensual sex. The violation that can be established was carrying out the death penalty on juveniles but considering the number of executions done by the major powers at the UN that isn't something they'll complain about too loudly. Dmcq (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The international community will rarely intervene beyond words in this kind of case. Iran is a sovereign nation and its laws and justice system are its own affair, even if other countries disagree with what it is doing. If the human rights of political prisoners are being violated, that sometimes gets a bit more attention, but if a country wants to outlaw homosexuality that isn't the kind of thing that attracts sanctions. There are plenty of people that think countries should intervene more often, but it isn't the mainstream view of world leaders. --Tango (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)