Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

July 2

Public opinion shift on abortion in the U.S between 1995 and 1997

In the days before and after Roe vs. Wade in which the Supreme Court in 1973 legalized abortion in all 50 states, support for abortion was rising in the polls and politicians where changing their stance on the issue. The trend was clear until support reached its peak in 1995 where according to Gallup, 56% of Americans claimed to be pro-choice and 33% claimed to be pro-life. For some reason, support for abortion dramatically dropped from 56% to 47% in just 2 years according to Gallup and the percentage of people claiming to be pro-life rose from 33% in 1995 to 44% in 1997. The issue of whether abortion should be legal or not has divided Americans ever since to the point that Americans are slightly more pro-life today than pro-choice in 2013 according to some of the latest polls. My question is what event, discovery, etc. caused the dramatic and astonishing drop in public opinion about abortion from 1995 to 1997? Willminator (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the Republican takeover of the Congress, and attendant propaganda? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some references. Based on a quick skim, this paper argues that the changing trends are a function of America's two-party system and the subsequent polarization of public opinion that has been occurring on many issues. [1] seems to think it's something to do with America's racial and gender divides. Here is Gallup's 2002 review of the trends over time. And this is a review of US supreme court rulings on abortion over time. P.S. if I understand rightly how these polls work, one poll in 20 is inaccurate, based on the standards used in polling. 184.147.144.173 (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to be the case with the issue of gay marriage. Is that the exception? It appears that Americans are becoming less polarized on that subject as more and more Americans are beginning to support it. Willminator (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The big shift during those two years probably had a lot to do with effective fundraising by Pat Robertson as head of the Christian Coalition of America. As a result of this fundraising, Robertson became very influential both within the Republican Party—due to his ability to support Republican candidates who echoed his views—and publicly—through television and print advertisements. During the mid-1990s, abortion opponents showered negative publicity on types of abortion most likely to cause revulsion, such as intact dilation and extraction. During this period, anti-abortion activists also picketed frequently in public places, displaying images of aborted fetuses emphasizing their resemblance to newborn babies. This publicity and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995 helped crystallize opposition not only to this form of abortion but to all forms. In effect, abortion opponents, including the National Right to Life Committee, used the most gruesome forms of abortion to convince a significant portion of the public that all abortion was gruesome and cruel. Marco polo (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the premise of the question is flawed, in that it assumes that opinion polls are a reliable barometer of public opinion. I would say that they are not, and even if they were, a shift from 56% to 47% support is not at all dramatic but merely a reflection of the margin of error within opinion polls. --Viennese Waltz 12:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, opinion polls are generally pretty accurate in determining how elections will turn out and the winner's approximate margin of victory as well. Thus, why can't they be a reliable barometer of public opinion on an issue such as this with a clearly worded question? Futurist110 (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. 56 to 47 may sound significant, but may not be statistically significant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to see what the data for the early 1990s and the late 1990s for all of the years was. If the data (hypothetically) went 45, 47, 46, 48, 49, 56, 50, 47, 45, 46, then the polling data from 1995 and/or 1996 was probably a fluke. If the data (hypothetically) went 45, 47, 50, 53, 54, 56, 52, 47, 45, 46, then it is more likely than in the other data set that the poll results from between 1995 and 1997 on this question were not flukes. Futurist110 (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So there's no reason people given about why polls on abortion declined so quickly from 1995 to 1997? Since 1995, support for abortion has never gone up to 56% again. It has not even gone up above 50% in the polls for a quite long time. Willminator (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the launch of Fox News Channel in 1996 also has something to do with influencing public opinion in the USA, with its supposed conservative bias. The impact of Fox News on voting patterns (and therefore I presume public opinion over controvertial topics such as abortion) has been examined by by David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt in their book The Fox Effect. Astronaut (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don Quixote question

Edmund Gayton's Festivous Notes (1654) mentions the following: "Pacolet’s horse for the lords, and Ephialtes the night-mare for their viragoes; Probably Dulcinea, committed Sancho to the care of one of her familiars, who gave him the Presto and a vade celeriter through the air; but he came not flying, but lying, all the way." I know "Pacolet's horse" is a literary reference to the wooden horse that both Don Quixote and Sancho ride, and I know that "Ephialtes the night-mare" refers to the mare. However, I am unsure what Gayton is referring to about Dulcinea and Sancho. Who or what is this familiar, and what is the "Presto and a vade celeriter"? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ephialtes presumably also refers to Ephialtes, who was responsible for nightmares, according to the Greeks (but not Ephialtes of Trachis, the traitor at Thermopylae, although the two are often confused). For the rest, he seems to think Dulcinea is a witch or a magician? A "familiar" could just be a family member or friend, but also a shape that a witch could take (turning into a bat or a cat or whatever). "Presto" and "vade celeriter" are supposed to be magic words (see Hocus Pocus for example). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When did humans first start believing in any form of a deity?

When was it, and where were these people located? I am interested for various reasons. Some might rephrase the question as:

"When did religion start?"
"Who were the first group of people to have/believe in a religion?"
"When did the concept of a deity first arise within humanity?"

Nicholasprado (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the short answer is anywhere between 100,000 BCE and 223,000 BCE. This was less to to with deity worship, however, and more to do with ceremonial rites. If you want a grey definition of when religion was born, this could be a proto form of it. The first real recorded deity, however, would be in 38,000 BCE. The Aurignacian Lion man of the Hohlenstein Stadel, the oldest known zoomorphic (animal-shaped) sculpture in the world and one of the oldest known sculptures in general, was made at this time. — Richard BB 08:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article only indirectly mentions paganism, but that has to have been around for nearly as long as humans began using their big brains. The core idea is that all of nature is "alive", not just the obviously-alive animals and plants. For example, volcanoes were associated with the wrath of gods. And paganism persists to this day, when we anthropomorphize nature, talking about storms having "angry" clouds and such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the human race is the history of people arguing about the answer to this question for untold thousands of years. Nobody yet, to date, has ever convinced everyone else they have the correct answer. How many religions are there on Earth? More than you've heard of, and each one has a different answer, not to mention those who are against religion all have different answers too. Therefore such a question does not seem well suited to the Wikipedia Reference desk. Like everyone else, you will probably have to spend a whole lifetime researching and drawing your own conclusions. Happy hunting! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Til U: The OP dis not ask if any of the established belief systems were correct / factual / true. They did pose the query when, in prehistoric and preliterate times, humans invented divine entities. Maybe the question can´t be answered as any evidence is sparse and open to fuzzy interpretation, nevertheless it seems a vaild enquiry for the RD. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) I never said the OP asked that. 2) I can read for myself what the OP asked. 3) None of the questions can be answered here, only different opinions given. 4) These are the sorts of questions that almost always open up cans of worms, which is why they were one of the topics avoided, back when people had more sense. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't say it, but you implied it. You're just trying to deter the OP from asking a perfectly valid question. This question is entirely capable of historical investigation, and presumably has a factual answer, although not one we may be able to determine. It is absolutely not purely a matter of opinion. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't infer things I did not say. If I mean to say something I will say it. For instance, I mean to say that yes, contradicting what you said, it is absolutely, 100% a matter of opinion (aka hypothesis / conjecture), and remains a mystery that cannot be answered without undertaking our own original research. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Til, your statement "[S]uch a question does not seem well suited to the Wikipedia Reference desk" is wrong, there are anthropologists/archeologists who are trying to find answers to that very "when" question, even though it is a very difficult one, and they must have written articles about their studies, so we could find references that the OP could find useful. --08:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure they are. They've been trying to convince everyone else on Earth of their views for several centuries now, and they aren't really getting any closer to a breakthrough on that in any of our lifetimes, no matter how much "wishful thinking" or other bells and whistles are applied. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it is like war, a phenomenon that predates us as a species. Dominant male chimps will shake the trees and make threat displays toward the sky when it rains. That's implicit belief in a sky god. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

War does not predate us as a species. In fact, the earliest evidence of war--and some archeologists dispute even this--is cemetery 117, from 13,000 years ago. By comparison human prehistory spans 200,000 to 6 million years, depending on your definition. In prehistoric and pre-agricultural times, few had the authority, the manpower, the resources, or the motive for going to war, as the world was a big empty place. --Bowlhover (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subsequent articles may be of help to the OP: Evolutionary origin of religions, History of religions, Timeline of religion. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: As a plug for my late countryman (whose couch I have narrowly missed thousands of times): Freud and religion. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure Freud has much to say about religion, when "Totem and Taboo" and "Moses and Monotheism" are two of his worst books (both quite strange, and both widely considered historically worthless by scholars in the relevant fields)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Til Eulenspiegel: I do disagree that the question I posed earlier to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk is a matter of opinion, since the topic on my mind is a exploration into when creatures, rather they be human or any other form of intelligent life, first started "believing" in a force that had power over them and could manipulate or control them, in other words a "belief" in something that they don't really have proof of, but something they feel exists to due to various experiences they've had. I'm also pointing to fellow user μηδείς post about chimps being angered at the sky pouring rain onto them, the chimps might feel that there is an enemy chimp or human or anything in the sky there for the sole purpose of throwing rain on them. The chimps would have no proof of this assertion, but they really couldn't find any other explanation as to why rain pours on them.

At what point in human history did we start to "believe" in a force that made any assortment of things happen?, and the more complicated and difficult to answer question:
Where were these human located on the planet?

Again I'm looking for when, where etc..., I don't have much experience in this topic so I posted it here, now it's seeming more likely that that part of history was never recorded. Thanks! Nicholasprado (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"that part of history was never recorded"... And in case I haven't used enough synonyms yet, here's one more: speculation. Again, nobody in several millennia has yet come up with any arguments that have proved to be compelling to most of earth's population. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of our modern concepts like "conscious being" don't even apply to the earliest humans. They seemed to take all active entities (growing organisms, fire, heavenly bodies) as having an animating spirit the same as oneself and other people. That is called animism. Animism as the earliest stage of natural history seems universal to all culturally modern humans, which means humans who possessed art and memorial burial in archaeology. That gives you a date of maybe 100,000 BC. On the other hand, Julian Jaynes theorized that humans only became "conscious" in his sense about 1,500 BC, when they began to realize that the thoughts in their heads were not the speech of others, but their own minds. (Consider even as late as the time of Aristotle gravity was explained as the "desire" of heavy bodies to occupy the center of the earth.) Before that point men were functionally schizophrenic, to put his theory in otherwords. This topic is so broad it would fill a bookshelf. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing, then, that we've even gotten past that point. I wonder if a person from one of those eras would be as functional as someone today if raised in modern society. — Melab±1 ☎ 03:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you might be able to see some kind of resurgence in the mystical if you follow the rantings of individuals who believe in the government men behind the curtain. — Melab±1 ☎ 03:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this shaman troll? He still exists. But no, no rant today. He's listening. Happy thoughts... InedibleHulk (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may find tracking down and taking a look at the following useful and/or interesting:

Harrod, James B. "A Trans-Species Definition Of Religion." Journal For The Study Of Religion, Nature & Culture 5.3 (2011): 327-353. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 July 2013.
L., G. "DEATH. (Cover Story)." New Scientist 216.2887 (2012): 32-36. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 July 2013.
Deeley, Peter Q. "THE RELIGIOUS BRAIN: Turning Ideas Into Convictions." Anthropology & Medicine 11.3 (2004): 245-267. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 July 2013.
Rossano, Matt. "Supernaturalizing Social Life." Human Nature 18.3 (2007): 272-294. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 July 2013.

All except the New Scientist article have what look to be pretty extensive references that are also probably worth pursuing. No definitive answer to your question in any of them, I'm afraid, but an avenue to explore, at the very least. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Gate

Are there any reconstruction or depictions of how the Lion Gate of Mycenae might have looked when the lion reliefs had heads on them? I know the article say they are missing and they are suppose to face down at the person approaching the gate, but looking at the image there seems to be very little room for a head between the neck and pillar and face of the wall above.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two paintings: [2] and [3] but I think your motherlode may be this site, where someone asked the same question as you and a ton of helpful reconstruction images were posted in reply. 184.147.144.173 (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Classical Music

(I think this is more relevant to humanities than entertainment)

Wikipedia has articles for lost_art and lost literature (entitled lost_work) but I can't find an equivalent for classical music. Does Wikipedia currently have such an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.210.47 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 2 July 2013

See Category:Lost musical works.—Wavelength (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Books on German war medals

Hi all,

Seeing as this is a reference desk, could one of you kind editors refer me to a book regarding such medals? I would be interested to in writing some articles on German war medals in the WW1-2 era. Anyone know of such a book, or even an online database? Thanks, ★★Retro Lord ★★ 16:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly are lots of books available to buy or from the library, such as Medals and Decorations of Hitler's Germany, German War Medals in the Light of History, A Collector's Guide to German World War 2 Medals and Political Awards.

As for free online sources, there is some very general info in The German Soldier in World War II pp13 ff. As you’ve seen, our articles Orders, decorations, and medals of Imperial Germany and Orders, decorations, and medals of Nazi Germany are each sourced to a single collector website, so it’s great you’re doing this!

If you read German, you might try the sources in the German Wikipedia article which include one book and several websites. 184.147.144.173 (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, I will look into all of that. Thanks, ★★Retro Lord ★★ 17:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Six heroic men

There is a book called Six Heroic Men: John Frith; T. Fowell Buxton; David Livingstone; Richard Baxter; John Lawrence; Claude Brousson. by William Garden Blaikie. Who is the T Fowell Buxton? Presumably Sir Thomas Buxton, 1st Baronet in which case his article should be renamed on the grounds of "known as". I come to this conclusion because of WG Blaikie's religious views. But I refer you also to the section in Buxton's article called "Descendants". Kittybrewster ☎ 18:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've created redirects for T. Fowell Buxton and T Fowell Buxton - WP:RM is the place to go if you think the article should be renamed, although the current title complies with WP:NCPEER and I think it's unlikely to be eligible for an exception. Tevildo (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know some detective novels of the Decadent Movement?

I need a detective novel from the Decadent Movement, is there any you can reccomend? -- 20:13, 2 July 2013‎ 189.222.240.18

A quick Google search comes up with Prince Zaleski by M. P. Shiel, although I've not read it myself. Tevildo (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shiel's Zaleski is certainly decadent, but Prince Zaleski is a collection of short stories, not a novel. Deor (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of Lady Diana Spencer by Isaac Whood

I am trying find a photograph of Isaac Whood's three-quarter length portrait of Diana Russell, Duchess of Bedford (née Lady Diana Spencer), painted in the early 1730s. The Duchess is depicted wearing a "Van Dyck costume", "sitting, in white satin". I was able to find much information about the portrait and how it came to be, but could not find an image of it no matter how hard I tried. Any help would be appreciated. Surtsicna (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it in the Woburn Abbey? I saw the description in a book cataloging stuff in abbey and in a roundabout way find these two links [4] and [5], although I don't think they are by Whood or is it the one on the book cover.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, yes, it is supposed to be in Woburn Abbey. Whood is definitely the author, but many thanks for finding the one by Hudson! I'll upload it immediately. I believe the portrait on the book cover is the one I am looking for, as it depicts her "sitting, in white satin". I don't think it would be a copyright violation if I cropped the book title out of the cover and used that image, but the resolution is rather low. It would be great if we could find an image of the portrait on its own, so to speak. By the way, I am ashamed to admit that I came across the cover while looking for the portrait but never realized that the painting on the cover might actually be that portrait! Thank you once again. Surtsicna (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that "Isaac Whood's companion portraits of the Duke and Duchess of Bedford in Vandyke mode are now untraced." The portrait on the book cover was painted by Charles Jervas. Thanks once again! Surtsicna (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nahl's Portrait of the Royal Family of Hawaii

In 1856 or 1857 (authenticating the date would be helpful too), Charles Christian Nahl created a portrait of the Royal Family of Hawaii on horseback that was exhibited in San Francisco. When and what was this exhibit? I see one source that said it was exhibited in the Mechanics' Institute Fair in 1857 but this New York Times article said that the painting was still being exhibited when Kamehameha V (a prince at the time) visited in 1860. How long was this exhibition? Also can anybody find out what happened to the original; source just said that it was lost with no info on who last owned it/saw it or what may have happened to it or other exhibition items like it after the event (maybe they were donated, destroyed, auction, etc). --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were 30 some Mechanics' Institute of SF expositions between 1857 and 1899. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably first exhibited in 1857, and put on show again during the visit in 1860. Local newpapers would give you information about the length of the exhibitions, but they would probably be only for a few weeks. "Lost" just means it disappears from records. It could still exist. Paul B (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homework

im really stuck on my homework im doing an invention from 1600-1900

I may misunderstand your question, but is our article Timeline of historic inventions of any help? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several interesting and useful things were invented during the assigned period. Is there any particular type of invention you want to report on? Things in transportation, energy, chemistry, medicine, communications, food preservation, entertainment, lighting, or warfare, perhaps? Edison (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 3

James A. King

Does anybody know the exact date of birth for James A. King in the year 1832?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His tombstone says Dec. 4, 1833 - October 16, 1899. [6] --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

which makes me ask a real dumb question: are tombstones automatically WP:RS? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're primary sources, so they're not generally RS at all. I'd say only use a tombstone as a source if there's no reliable printed secondary source. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um... not so fast. Primary sources most certainly can be RS... However, a lot depends on how you word the specific statement you are supporting with the primary source.

For example, consider the statement: "James A. King's tombstone gives Dec. 4, 1833 as his date of death." For this statement, the tombstone itself is not only a reliable source... it's the single most reliable source possible.

Now consider another statement: "James A. King died on Dec. 4 1833." For this statement the actual tombstone is probably reliable, but since it is a primary source we should be cautious... it is not the most reliable source possible - because there exists at least the potential that it might have been mis-carved (unlikely, but it could happen). We can use it in the absence of secondary reliable sources, but should defer to those other sources if they exist.

Finally, let us consider a third statement: "King died during the great epidemic of 1833." Here, his tombstone would not be reliable. The tombstone says nothing about the epidemic. While there might well have been a "great epidemic of 1833", one that took place around the date listed on his tombstone ... to draw the two facts together involves making an original inference that is not justified by looking at just the tombstone. For more on the proper (and improper) use of primary sources see our WP:No original research policy... and the essay WP:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In genealogical research I frequently find tombstones with birth and death dates which disagree with official birth and death certificates signed by the doctor. I tend to believe the official certificates in these cases. The tombstone carver writes whatever the person hiring him tells him to, and the person buying the tombstone may well be mistaken about the birthdate if it was long before the informant was born. People were not always well informed about their own birth dates, or they may have chosen to report a different date (such as vanity leading them to make themselves younger or even older than they really were). The death date would seem to be an obviously correct one, but even these are often off by a day from the death certificate, for unknown reasons. Sometimes a grave only has a temporary marker or no marker for many years until someone buys a tombstone, or the old frail marble slab might be vandalized and replaced by a new tombstone with the purchaser unsure of what dates were on the original. Edison (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Put another way, tombstones are primary (i.e., contemporary) documents regarding death dates, but secondary documents for birth dates. They are usually more accurate for the latter than the former. - Nunh-huh 04:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Population Projections

In this article -- http://www.jpost.com/National-News/CBS-study-projects-114-million-Israelis-in-2035-317738 -- among a couple of other articles, it means that Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics recently created new population projections for Israel up to 2035. Does anyone know where the original population projections here are located? I checked the English version of the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics website, but I couldn't find them, and I don't speak or read Hebrew (anymore), so I was unable to thoroughly search the Hebrew version of this website for these projections. Also, are these projections only in Hebrew or is there an English version of them? As a side note, I might be able to add some of the information in these population projections to some Wikipedia articles. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Projections of Israel Population until 2035" and "Population in base year 2010 and Projection for 2015 - 2035, by variant, population group and religion". ---Sluzzelin talk 02:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I strongly appreciate it. Futurist110 (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Laprobe of a hack

What exactly is a "laprobe of a hack" mentioned here?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 1904, a hack might have meant a hackney carriage.
Sleigh (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which fits in nicely with the definition of a lap robe (not what you find on le spaceship alien). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Age and intelligence

Age and intelligence is a redirect to intellectual giftedness, which seems completely wrong to me. I looked up that article because I wanted to know what research has been done on the correlation between age and intelligence. Any sourced information on this topic would be welcome, then I can figure out what to do about that redirect. --Viennese Waltz 11:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That redirect does not sound correct, especially if there's nothing about it in the target article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh yeah that's what I said. --Viennese Waltz 12:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for agreeing with you. I won't let it happen again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Developmental psychology is the best match that I can see, although there doesn't seem to be much about the relationship between age and intelligence. Alansplodge (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about the redirect is to gather some sources and edit the redirect to create a new article which does not duplicate the intellectual giftedness article, but covers the topic broadly. For example, if the article covered not just precocious children, but also the effect of senescence on intelligence as well as on normal intellectual development of children, along side "giftedness", you'd be on to something. --Jayron32 13:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know, that's why I asked for sourced information on the topic – so that I could create the article. --Viennese Waltz 13:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This will get you started. --Jayron32 13:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our intelligence quotient article contains relevant material, specifically the sections Early history and IQ and age. Note the the IQ measure was specifically designed to take age into account. Looie496 (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 chapters, "Intelligence in Infancy", "Intelligence in Childhood", and "Intelligence in Adulthood" in Sternberg and Kaufman (eds.), The Handbook of Intelligence (Cambridge University Press, 2011). These have lots of authoritative information in themselves, but also contain bibliographies to the most important recent writings on the topics. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 16:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in Cognitive Function in Human Aging (2007 textbook chapter)
The Lifespan Development of Individuals: Behavioral, Neurobiological, and... (book, see at least page 437)
The Effects of Aging on Intelligence (course notes, click on the two subpages as well)
Cognitive Function Can Start Failing At 45 Years Of Age (news article)
Aging and Cognitive Function (hospital info sheet)
What could account for our middle age peak in cognitive function: wiring? (blog post by a neuroscientist, see links in it)

and

Adult Age Differences in Multiple Cognitive Functions (academic paper)
Relationships among processing speed, working memory and fluid intelligence in children (academic paper)
Trajectory of High Cognitive Functioning Among the Oldest Old (academic abstract, confirms decline after 40)
Within-Cohort Age-Related Differences in Cognitive Functioning (academic abstract, of interest because "cohort effect" might be a fruitful line of research for you) 184.147.144.173 (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I conclude from this discussion is that the redirect of "Age and intelligence" should either (a) become it's own article or (b) redirect to the IQ & Age section of that other article. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entry on "Emptiness"

note-14 under "Emptiness" refers to a United States psychologist, but searching her doesn't lead to any article or remarks which are quoted. Were they from an article or oral remarks made at one of her presentations? If so, please add more information to support the quotation. Can I contact the author of the page?Dalancer (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search indicates that "Awakening the Silent Soul: Treating Eating Disorders From the Inside Out" is the title of a workshop presentation that Jennifer Nardozzi has given in a number of places -- I see no indication that it has been published anywhere. As such, this probably ought not to be used as a source for our article. Looie496 (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Interesting catch. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources says sources have to be published - and as Looie496 says, this is an oral presentation ([7]). Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard could tell you what do to next. 184.147.144.173 (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one had edited the article, I asked the Reliable Sources folks and they said delete the whole paragraph, which I have done. 184.147.144.173 (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt Rallies

Have the recent rallies in Egypt been the largest groups of protestors ever?

Probably not. — Lomn 18:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qur'an and Torah belt? and equivalent to Jesusland

In Muslim nations, do they have their own "Qur'an belt"? In Israel, does it have its own "Torah belt"? In Muslim nations and Israel, do they have a region equivalent to America's "Jesusland map"? --Donmust90 (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

I'm not sure what question you're asking. Can you rephrase the question, perhaps? --Jayron32 19:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's asking for local equivalents to the American "Bible Belt". Israel is small, but there are some neighborhoods of Jerusalem, and some towns, which are heavily Orthodox.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And there are more and less conservative areas in many Muslim countries. For example, in Egypt, it's often stated that Alexandria and the countryside are much more conservative than Cairo. The term "Koran Belt" (or other spellings) is not used, though. --Xuxl (talk) 09:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Female members of an American family I know living in Saudi Arabia in a compound for non-Muslims are severely limited in their lifestyle by the religious rules: They have to wear Muslim dress in public outside the compound. There are no movie theaters, they can't have a Christian church, but they can meet together at a "morality meeting" with no cross in evidence and sing some Christian songs. The girls cannot do a dance recital. This might be considered the "Koran Belt." If they drive (more accurately hire a male driver to take them) a short distance to Bahrain, then the girls could be confirmed in their Christian religion by a Bishop, they can watch movies,swim in a pool, buy DVDs, and attend a public Christian worship service. Bahrain would not be in the "Koran belt." Iraq was an example of a "non-Koran-Belt" country, at least before the US (and allies) invasion. Egypt was not much of a Koran belt country, with a tradition of secular government and Christians allowed to practice their religion freely. Afghanistan under the Taliban was extreme Koran Belt. Edison (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bondage and Sexual Thoughts

Troll, now indef'd

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Not a joke question, I swear. I like bondage, in a sexual way, and I take a keen interest in metal bondage, such as handcuffs, leg shackles, cages and other things. Why? What causes humans to enjoy such things? What is the catalyst? I am sorry if this question is inappropriate.

--Kertial (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pet theory is that bondage is the release from internal sexual repression. Bind the limbs to free the mind.

[8]

But I have no personal experience in such matters. Hcobb (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bondage (BDSM) contains some thoughts on this matter. Bielle (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the idea was that you could have wild sex, but not feel guilty, because you were tied up and thus had no say in the matter. StuRat (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reports of signs specially written in Chinese that relates to impolite behaviour of Chinese?

I used to heard report like this in Chinese says that there is once a notice sign that tells "Do not spit" in Chinese in the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and it was reportedly removed some years later. However, I seemed to find no google results or google image results. Is it verifiable? Are there any reports of similar events about Chinese signs in other countries' tourist attractions?--Bnfbgfgk (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite the same, but these signs are all over the place in China, especially since just before the Beijing Olympics, as the Chinese Government did not want all of the foreign spectators to see this kind of behaviour (which is extremely common - hence the need for the signs). Another one is 'Do not blow your nose" - referring to the Chinese habit of blowing it straight onto the pavement with one finger covering each nostril alternately. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though, my question is: are there such notices outside China that seemed to be dedicated to Chinese people and their behaviour? (e.g. multilingual notices and those in Chinatowns wouldn't be so plausible to mean "dedicated to Chinese...") Are there notices of this kind common in tourist attractions outside China(I have never seen one yet),or are those reports just made-up things or over-emphasizing of single events to make people aware?--Bnfbgfgk (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that. That's why I said, 'Not quite the same, but...' KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the day when I was an exchange student at Tsukuba University, the international office had signs on the trash bins telling people not to spit into them in several languages - Japanese, English, Korean and Chinese. The thing is, the Chinese sign used about three or four times as big a font as the others, which seemed to just have been tacked along for PC purposes. 192.51.44.21 (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google found me this rather odd page, which I believe is Chinese, which says under the heading "How to develop good habits": South Korean public places, specially for Chinese posted "no spitting," Italy Leaning Tower of Pisa "don't spit" with the Chinese, the United States of America in the toilet use Chinese to write "flush after use"... Alansplodge (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if it is reliable since pictures seemed irrelevant and no additional proof. What I can find about the Pisa tower is just a reporter says he saw such signs, so it might be convincible.--Bnfbgfgk (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 4

Cephalitis in the 1890s

Were people sent to insane asylums for having cephalitis (exact words) in the 1890s? The source said cephalitis. Correct me if I am wrong but it might be Encephalitis.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a synonym,[9] like "sick head" vs. "sick in head". Similarly, an old variant on "encyclopedia" was "cyclopedia". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have a source, may I ask what it is and what country it refers to? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that both "cephalitis" and "phrenitis" are obsolete synonyms of "encephalitis". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to know without seeing the source, but it was probably referring to syphilis, which was essentially incurable at that time, and in many victims would eventually invade the brain giving rise to neurosyphilis, a form of encephalitis that produced steadily worsening dementia. Looie496 (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Whoa no I don't think so. Her name was Mauli Keawepooole, a 14 year old girl who died in 1899 and lived during the beginning of the Territory of Hawaii, that is all the detail, attended by a Dr. Humphries. Here is the source [10] around the bottom of the second column. Does anyone know what was "the Insane asylum" referred to in the article like if its name and if it survives today? Also who is Dr. Humphries?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see the reference to her burial but not to what she was suffering from. Where did you get that from? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A descendant of her mother.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a picture of the insane asylum (I assume there was just one in Honolulu) here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Dr. Humphries is almost certainly one Francis Howard Humphries. See the first page of this. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Communism, Nazism, fascism, and Thomism — is one of these things not like the others?

One of today's "did you know" blurbs points to the bio on Conyers Read, who apparently warned in one breath against "the Thomist, the Fascist, the Nazi, the Communist". I certainly agree with his point on the last three. But does anyone know what led him to classify Thomas Aquinas with the three proponents of extreme statism?

At a brief glance at the Thomism article, most of its main points seem to be abstract and metaphysical. There are probably some I would agree with and some I would disagree with, and some I would find not meaningful enough to say either way; I would have to give it some thought before assigning particular points to any of the three categories. But I didn't see anything that said to me that the individual should be completely at the service and mercy of the group. So what set Read off? --Trovatore (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Nazism is the odd one out. Nazism is a specific manifestation of Fasicsm, so it is the only one in the list that has a set-element relationship with any of the others. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the set-element relationship transitive? So A is an element of B, B is a set containing A, so they both have this relationship. Then Fascism is also an "odd one out". But I think I get your point.. IBE (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you are right. My bad. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the set-element relationship is not transitive. It's also not commutative. The subset relation (which is relevant here) is transitive (but also not commutative). See also Is-a (which is basically the same as the subset relationship, but is conceptually on the object level, not the set level). So Naziism is a form of fascism, which is a form of ideology (or, equivalently, the set of all Nazisms is a subset of the set of all fascisms, which is a subset of the set of all ideologies). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, guys, I did my PhD in set theory, so thanks, but to restate, the question is: I see what Nazism, fascism, and Communism have in common, all three being extreme statist ideologies at least in practice, but I don't get why Read thought that Thomism belonged in the same list. Any insight on that? --16:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hardly an expert on this but it looks very much to me like the reason he picked on Thomism is because Thomism advocates the concept that a central belief system (in this case, everything written by Thomas Aquinas) cannot and indeed must not be questioned for any reason ever, and indeed doing so must be punished. That sounds very like the ideas that held up the fascist and Communist states - the idea that one group told you what to believe, and therefore you must believe in it as if it were your very own idea. It could be that he was using Thomism as a scapegoat - a well-known philosophy not affiliated to any specific political parties of the time and therefore to be considered a "general case", perhaps he considered it a metaphor, perhaps in the 1950s it was in fact an oft-cited example and far better known to the casual listener. Either way, I'd say this is why he uses it. Falastur2 ^Talk 17:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could be anti-Catholic. Catholic theologians hold Aquinas in high regard. Read seems to have written about politics in Tudor England so would have had strong views about the Reformation. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want you can read Finnis, John, Aquinas: Moral, Political and Legal Theory (Oxford University Press, 1998). I can certainly see the relation between proponents of Thomism, Fascism, and National Socialism: They all focus on trying to align positive law with natural law. Most modern political groups don't seem to talk about natural law much if at all. I'm not sure about Communism. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see that. I imagine Italian Fascism threw some sops towards natural law because it might have resonated with native Catholicism, but Nazism seems to have been more about what the Volk could get for itself. When I think natural law, I think John Locke, whose views were virtually the opposite of fascism and communism. --Trovatore (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Hitler was the archetypical anti-intellectual, but Marx was very much in the tradition of Locke. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having a little trouble swallowing that last, but even if so, I very much doubt that Read meant to criticize Locke in this broadside. --Trovatore (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likely not. Also, "communist" societies were only vaguely inspired by Marx anyways. I think Itsmejudith is on the right track. Read lived most of his life in a time when anti-Catholicism was very strong in the US. He might have included Thomism as the ideological base of Catholicism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said that all three are about aligning positive law with natural law, not that they are just about natural law simpliciter. Locke is not like that all. He talks about natural law a lot, true, but then sets it aside, because he determines that natural law has it that people are free in a special sense. Positive laws placed upon free people then are to be determined by consent, not by nature. That's in fact a distinctive attribute of Locke and the early modernists in the history of political science: setting aside natural law more or less in determining positive law. From the Second Treatise, 119: "Every man being, as has been shown, naturally free, and nothing being able to put him into subjection to any earthly power, but only his own consent;" That's exactly where a Thomist and a fascist and National Socialist would disagree: For them, the earthly powers are to be arranged according to natural law, whether the subjects of this earthly power consent or not.

To make the case that National Socialism was like that, I can only cite Mein Kampf and the Third Reich policies. Hitler goes on at length about laws of nature and "racial laws" in particular. One story he has is with regards to Germanic and Latin immigrants to the Americas: The Germanic immigrants, because they mixed with the aboriginals less than the Latin immigrants, rose to become masters of the continent. The general account of racial nature: Only a few or even just one race is the source of human progress and goodness, and miscegenation destroys this. The policies are then enacted in alignment with this racial law: citizenship is limited to those of "German or kindred blood". --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make sure we're speculating simply based on a four-term book title? Looking at what else Read's written, I would venture a guess he meant Catholic forces aligned against Elizabethan Britain. If so, it's not a very accurate choice of words, intellectually or historically. μηδείς (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are not speculating on a book title, but on a quote by another historian about Read (which gives the impression that Read used the phrase in question himself). Check reference 14 (as of just now ;-) in Conyers Read. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomism allows that the acquisition of wealth, when obtained by legal means, affords no occasion for guilt, which would be heretical for Communism; the Thomist account of man as intrinsically good is generic, to be applied to all members of mankind, and hence exclusive of race, which is diametrically opposed to Fascism and Nazism; the Thomist theory of government recognizes monarchy, and aristocracy but argues that people have a right to choose their leaders, where the rulers can be elected (the conditional is problematical), and therefore is consonant with democracy. In so far as law in Thomism derives from God, there is no room for a Fuehrerprinzip, or a secular appropriation of power that usurps principles that are regarded as transcendental and eternal. One could go on. But the conflation is rather pathetic. One might as well say Aristotelianism is totalitarian or the Bible is writ for genocide. Aquinas, with that extraordinary rigour of analytical reason, would have ended up like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or Pavel Florensky, in any of the modern totalitarianisms.Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was quite an impressive answer, Nishidani. μηδείς (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best clues seem to be that his publications were mainly on England of the period 1485-1603, including the Protestant Reformation in England, and he is categorized under "Reformation historians" (although that sounds rather like it would mean historians who lived during the reformation, doesn't it?) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A grave insult to Thomas to lump him in with those sad 20th century ideologies, and a misunderstanding of his work, but the use of his name looks to me like a shorthand term for the Catholic Church. After all, it too has been a supranational organisation under an absolute ruler that exerted indisputable control over large areas of political, social and personal life, including ruthless suppression of perceived dissenters. --Hors-la-loi 15:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Think of it this way: Communism, Maoism, Fascism, Thomism. Maoism is to Communism as Nazism is to Fascism: one expression of the underlying concept.DOR (HK) (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interest and Capital gains

It seems to me that in most jusrisdictions, interest received from a bank is taxed as a normal income (usually at the same rate as a salary), whereas capital gains are taxed seperately (or not at all). Am I right? Please feel free to shoot down my assumption here if I am wrong. What about interest payments from bonds, are they considered insterest or capital gains?

Also, if I am right that they are considered to be different, is there a theoretical or economical justification for this difference in the tax rate between interest and capital gains? Any reference to any government's statement, or economists' studies are welcome.

I am not currently receiving any of these types of income, so this is not a request for legal advice, only I am very interested in how those who do get these incomes are taxed. --Lgriot (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Complicated and jurisdiction-dependent. In the United States, there's a distinction between long-term capital gains and short-term capital gains; only the former gets privileged treatment (short-term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income, but it's still necessary to distinguish them from ordinary income because there are complicated rules about how they are offset by short-term and long-term capital losses).

Bank interest is generally not considered capital gains at all (at least in the US), but some forms of dividend interest are so considered. I think this is fairly new, arising from the (George W.) Bush tax reforms, but I'm not sure of that. This one kind of makes sense to me (the idea is to avoid penalizing dividend-paying stocks in relation to stocks that don't pay dividends). But also see carried interest — that one I don't get at all.

I am not an expert on any of this and no one should rely on it for any actual financial decisions. --Trovatore (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is correct that capital gains, at least long-term capital gains, usually receive favorable tax treatment, see our articles on capital gains tax and capital gains tax in the United States. The usual rationale, briefly discussed in the latter article, is that lower taxes for capital gains results in increased investment, although factually this is questionable at best. Interest payments on bonds are ordinary income, not capital gains. Stock dividends are not capital gains, but qualified dividends also receive favorable tax treatment in the United States.

Trovatore, "carried interest" uses "interest" in the broad sense of ownership; it does not mean interest on debt. The carried interest may arise from any form of income received by the hedge fund, including interest on bonds or capital gains. John M Baker (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, so the main thing is that the government people assume that capital gains is a product of long term investment, whereas interest is not, that is why they give the former a preferential treatment. Thanks to all for your help.--Lgriot (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Godfather

My brother has had a baby. He (the child) is going to be christened. I'm atheist but was brought up Catholic and was consequently christened, made my first communion and was confirmed. Would it be possible for me to act as a witness (play some of the part of the godfather) at the christening, without making any religious vows or even statements of belief?

My brother is my only brother and my sister-in-law has only one sister. It would be natural to assume that we would be the godparents. I don't want to be egotistical and be pointy about the whole scenario (the day is not about me), but I really don't think I can make vows that I don't believe in. It would be good if there was a tidy way around the situation. I've read that it's possible for a non Catholic to be a Christian witness but that situation doesn't apply to me. Can a Catholic (in the Church's eyes) be a non Christian witness?

It will be a Roman Catholic baptism.

Thanks Stanstaple (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you read Godparent, and also talk to the priest in their church. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends very much on the church and the priest. I wasn't asked if I was a Christian or required to provide Christian upbringing when I became a godfather (in a protestant church), only to help and support the child in question. But that may be quite atypical. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, that is often the purpose of a godparent, and in fact I (a protestant) was always under the impression that that was the whole point of that role. And I wouldn't think a promise to support a child if it loses its parents would require religious faith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had exactly this issue. The RC ceremony in question (I don't know to what extent it varies) asked the Godparents to affirm that they believed in Jesus (and in the theological significance of Jesus) and to agree to help raise the child in the Roman Catholic faith. My cousin, who is a practising Roman Catholic, was actually questioned by the priest as to the theological underpinnings of his faith. On consultation with the parents, I agreed instead to be the "Science Father" (a role I invented for myself), which mostly entails buying the little tyke books about dinosaurs and minibeasts and stuff. 87.112.233.132 (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's only an issue if you've got some lurking concern that lying to a priest might be a sin punishable by God. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses thus far. I have read the Godparent article and searched a bit around the web, unfortunately I haven't found my answer. My understanding is that, as godfather, you do have to make vows at an RC baptism that I can't in good faith make. I know that for many it's okay just to go along with it and tell pseudo white lies. But, I think it would be better for all concerned if I could stand at the alter with my brother, sister-in-law & nephew, without lying, yet still affirm my guardianship of the little fella.

I've a feeling that there is an answer out there - but I don't know how to find it.

If anyone can search better than I, and find a method which maintains every ones integrity I'd very much appreciate it. I don't expect anyone to ask anyone on my behalf; if I could be pointed in the direction of a forum or wherever that I could get an answer, I'd be very grateful Stanstaple (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on thar, Baba Looey. Is it really about "integrity" or is it about imposing your view on someone else? Is your brother OK with you making such a promise, knowing that it's bogus? If so, then just do it. Why should you give a Hoot in Hades what some priest that you'll never see again thinks about it? Your role will be to support the child if something happens to the parents. That's what you're committing to, and it's all that really matters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably because not all atheists are the dishonest, amoral, and selfish people you think they are, and some atheists may actually believe in doing the right thing (i.e. being honest) for the sake of doing the right thing? It is intriguing that you think being honest is the equivalent of imposing one's view on someone else. --50.47.81.232 (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on where you live, and the wisdom of the priest. My atheist-communist friend and his formally converted wife asked me to be godfather of his child in a Catholic baptism in Italy. The priest, living in a communist township, posed no objections. Both the father and I undertook to have the child raised institutionally as a Catholic. In another district, the priest disallowed my playing a similar role for doctrinal reasons, and knowing I was a pagan.Nishidani (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I live in a Dublin. It's not so much a matter of what I can get away with or nudge a priest into. I'm not tring to pull a stroke or be cute.

I think what I'm trying to avoid is me imposing my beliefs on others by being conspicuosuly absent. I don't think it's okay to proclaim things which are fundamentally important but which I don't believe at, an occasion like this. That's why I can't stand up and speak words that I believe to be lies. I'm hoping for a solution, similar to their wedding, where I could be involved but not blatantly lie. Words do count. Especially at times like this.

And good on you for having the integrity to care about this issue. Best I can say is, as others have said, talk it over with the parents and/or the priest. There is no one-size-fits-all answer to these types of questions. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The highest "integrity" would be to do what's best for the child and its parents, as opposed to tryng to impose one's (non-)religious views on a situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that seems somewhat overstated. Seems to me the OP has been invited to participate in this ceremony, and feels a degree of social/family obligation, but also has moral scruples about doing something he does not believe in. There's no imposition of non-religious views going on. The role of a godparent in a Catholic baptism is not about assuming the role of the parent if the real parents fall under a bus, except to the extent of the child's religious upbringing. There is no assumption that the godparent will adopt the child, for example (which would be a tough call if the godparents were married to different spouses, which is usually the case). This is more about setting an example of not acting contrary to one's conscience, at least until the matter can be sorted out in discussions with the appropriate parties. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither my friend nor I were 'nudging' the priest. He knew both of us, and trusted that, since the father wanted the child baptised, and was notoriously a man of his word, and, extremely choosy about his friends, he inferred that the baptism was sponsored by people who did not take their contracted obligations - a godfather assumes a moral responsibility for a child's welfare, ethical and existential- lightly. He never asked me to say anything. Perhaps it was enough that my wife, the godmother, was devout. He was, if you like, a Graham Greenish priest, not a pettifogger. Nishidani (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Nishindani - I didn't mean to imply that you were. I just wanted to make clear that I don't want to pretend to be a Catholic for the sake of the ceremony. Stanstaple (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My family is Roman Catholic, from Liverpool, of Irish immigrant stock. I think the godfather vow is just ceremonial. Like a mother marrying for the second time, yet wearing a white dress. It's just part of the tradition. I don't even know who my godfather is. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What did people in the GDR think of the Stasi

In the light of recent events, what did the people that actually lived in the GDR think of the Stasi? First of all, did they know to what extent they were watched, how many people were involved, etc? Would they have thought "this phone call might be listened to" on a daily basis, or was it the suspicious neighbour that would frighten them more, or was it something most people didn't really care about except for the few politically active? How many had a "nothing to hide" attitude? How many would say that that it would be no problem for them to have someone listening in on their sex life, as long as they wouldn't know about it? How many would actually have felt secure not because there would be less crimes against the state but just liked the idea that someone was watching them and could prevent mistakes, similar to God or parents? And would that differ between religious and non-religious people? Did the opinion change during the GDR regime? How many people wanted to know what was recorded after the Wall fell? Any research about this? Joepnl (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing the NSA with the GDR is highly offensive. The core premise of a state like the GDR is simply this: No dissension is allowed. The mere fact that the NSA stuff is a topic of discussion in the US (and now in France, apparently, as they're doing the same thing - and probably everyone else is too) makes the comparison bogus. As to whether they liked it, check how quickly they got rid of their dictator when they had the chance, and tore down the wall, and that should give you a hint of how well they liked it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who mentioned the National Security Agency? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this is a case of If the shoe fits. And on a totally unrelated note, today I saw Chain of Command (part 2). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even specifically mean the NSA, nor do I want to stir a discussion. There are more reasons people must have disliked the GDR like being poor compared to West Germany. Joepnl (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then what "recent events" are you talking about? Maybe the willingness of Facebook, Google, etc., to sell your personal info to anyone they feel like? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NSA is one of the events, the Post Office another, bugging embassies yet another, and so are France's "NSA", Dutch internet providers, and then some more. It's quite hard to keep track these last weeks, really. I already said I didn't want a discussion, but since you ask. I don't have an account for Facebook, or Google, and they are not nearly as invasive. Also, fallacy.Joepnl (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that those entities are less invasive. The US government is collecting massive phone call lists because the phone companies won't retain the data for them. Those internet companies (and countless others) are actively invading your privacy. I fail to see how trying to carpet-bomb you with spam and identity theft is somehow more appropriate than trying to protect you from terrorists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming a forum, isn't it. In the EU phone companies do have to retain that data, which is and was publicly known. I'm not carpet-bombed with spam or identity theft because I didn't opt-in with those companies. I'm not a member of Oprah's Book Club either, and she never sent me any spam but if she would, I'd be able to go to a public court and make it stop. IMHO, I need as much protection from terrorists as the people in the GDR needed a Wall to protect them from Western Imperialism. Joepnl (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC) (That last sentence is a bit overstated. I mean terrorism should be considered like any murder, instead of a special kind) Joepnl (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. They are not the same. Terrorism is not "just" murder, it is an act of war against a nation. As regards the phone records, who cares where they are? Whether the government has them or the phone company has them, it still requires a warrant to investigate it. Internet hackers are a far greater danger to us, individually, than is a ginormous database of phone calls. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked these questions because of sincere interest in the psychological issues regarding spying on people, for which the GDR seemed like a nice example. Obviously, I wouldn't have asked if this subject (which is definitely not confined to the NSA or even the US) hadn't been in the news for weeks. If I wanted to have an in-depth discussion, however, I wouldn't have chosen the reference desk. As you rightly stated, that discussion is taking place already, so you'll probably agree with me that we don't need to re-enact the same discussion on the reference desk. Joepnl (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? You're offended by an implied comparison to a non-existent state, but not offended at a government that spies on you without a warrant and can murder you without trial? Please, tell me more about how everyone should respect your distorted sensitivities. --50.47.81.232 (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The US government is not "spying on me without a warrant". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if a pointer to Daniel Patrick Moynihan will help, but I'll try... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to see The Lives Of Others. It was by someone who never saw life under the Stasi, but I read a review, and the people from East Germany said, "Yes, that was what we lived through". The film portrays the fear of bugging (for a writer and activist, not an ordinary citizen) and the interest in seeing the file that the government kept. The bit about seeing the surveillance files was presumably based on knowledge, since von Donnersmarck lived in the united Germany, and would have been able to research that kind of stuff. I also read about Romania after the fall of the Ceausescu regime, and the people used to tell jokes to keep themselves sane. One joke ran: "Two people are standing on a bus, and one of them is standing on the other guy's foot. So the second guy says 'Are you a government minister?' 'No' 'Are you working for the secret police?' 'No' 'Oh - are you some kind of government official of some sort?' 'No' 'So you mean to tell me you are not working for the government in any way.' 'That's right' 'Then get the hell off my foot'." Others were along similar lines. I would say human psychology is similar enough anywhere, and a political system such as that in East Germany essentially pits people against their own kind. It would never create a harmonious society based around the idea that surveillance is a cultural norm. I don't know anything about the psychology of the people who conform, and rat on their neighbours, however. This has always amazed me. IBE (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the OP's final question: after reunification, there was a big controversy over access to Stasi files--our article has the details. Obviously most people wanted to see their own files, but ex-Stasi (most of whom had only marginal positions within the organization) were understandably concerned that open access would lead to a era of retribution and make it impossible for East Germany to leave the past behind. In the end, people were allowed to see their own files, while media and researchers had limited rights to viewing the files of others (including, in some cases, ex-Stasi). --50.47.81.232 (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

field of psychology about the misconceptions of individual experience

I think there is a field of psychology about this but I'm not getting anywhere with searching. The idea is that we believe our individual experience is unique to us, but that most of our experience is really not different from one person to another. Like we know that we all have similar experiences of adolescence (feeling outcast and angry for example) that seem to be unique until we grow older and find that everyone feels that way.

So this field takes that idea about adolescent experience and generalizes it to all human experience. My question is: what is the name of that field? With that information, I can carry on searching but I seem to be unable to progress without it. thanks, Tim (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly and monthly magazines

What are the 5 best selling weekly and monthly magazines in the UK? I've done google search but found nothing. Pass a Method talk 21:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This site seems to have a reasonably comprehensive list. A quick collation of the data gives the top five weeklies as TV Choice, What's On TV, Take a Break, the Radio Times and New!, and the top five monthlies as Slimming World Magazine, Glamour, Moshi Monsters Magazine, Cosmopolitan, and Woman & Home (on which we don't have an article!). Tevildo (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Incidentally, I'm assuming Moshi Monsters is monthly. If it's weekly, it doesn't make the top 10, and #5 on the monthly list goes to Yours - another magazine without an article.) Tevildo (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Rough House" Case

In this 1904 newspaper story about the so-called "Rough House" case, I am having some trouble making out what rough house means. Is the story basically speaking about Mary Morris being abused by her husband and then taking out her anger on three pedestrians after she left the house? Is "rough house" a common euphemism during that period?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I searched Google Newspaper Archive holdings for 1890 to 1910, and found "rough house" used only to describe physical struggle, fighting, or disorderly conduct. maybe "rough house" was local slang for a low-class saloon in Hawaii in 1904. Edison (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume from the context that the phrase is the equivalent of the English legal term disorderly house (99% of the time a brothel, but occasionally a gambling den). Etymonline doesn't list this as a meaning of "rough-house", but does include "barrel house" ("cheap saloon, often with an associated brothel") in its search results for the term. Tevildo (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access the newspaper clipping, but a possible alternative spelling of Roughhouse? 64.201.173.145 (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that way at first saying "Morris...had been in a rough house, and she assaulted three innocent persons, the account made it appear that they were all harbitues of such a 'rough house', which is an unfair and an unjust slur upon those whom the woman...assaulted" but then when describing the event it says "she came out from the 'rough house' and picked a quarrel". If it is meaning rough house as in roughhousing, I don't understand the use of quotations for this phrase and why the journalist would call it a slur or say the woman would come out from the 'rough house'. Here is another link.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's probably a brothel, as Tevildo has said above. I remember my mother using it in such a context 50 years ago. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your mother used a brothel, Tammy? Saucy lady. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 5

How to look up criminal complaints?

I would like to find a criminal complaint filed against Justin Carter by the New Braunfels Police Department in Texas. This is a notable case in which many news sources ^{[11] [12] [13]} have cited the complaint. (Don't worry about outing - the family would not be offended^[14] that people know about the case) I'm quite interested in this specific example (thinking to start an article in the next couple of days, time permitting) but in general, I often feel like I don't know the particulars of a situation for sure until I've seen the complaint and the specific laws involved. Alas, though news organizations always cite these things they seem to treat their sources like a proprietary asset. Is there some straightforward way to view criminal complaints online, or is it some deal where a reporter has to walk in an archive between 4 and 5 on a Wednesday and pay $10 a page for a copy? Wnt (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a FOIA issue, which means that you would have to file a proper request. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled that States do not have to grant FOIA requests to non-residents, so you may not even be able to access the complaint yourself if no one who has already requested it has not made it availible. --Jayron32 00:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for this information in order to use it in a Wikipedia article, see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which explicitly cautions against using such material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems hard to picture that so many different news organizations obtained FOIAs with such little fanfare - my impression was that it was no easy task to get one acted on. As for the article, it would be nice (for example) to know the specific laws involved (and beyond that article, who voted for them...) Wnt (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no general system for obtaining court documents; each court system varies in how much it puts online. There is a docket sheet for this case (which I do not link to because it contains the defendant's address and birthdate; you can find it by making an appropriate search here), but it does not link to the relevant documents. Sometimes one of the parties will make a document available on request; you could try informally contacting the district attorney's office. John M Baker (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further to AndyTheGrump's point: An indictment is not an acceptable source for factual statements based upon the indictment's allegations, but is an excellent source for describing what the indictment itself says. However, indictments and other court documents often contain personal information that makes them unsuitable for linking. John M Baker (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Individualism and notions of justice

In the justice systems of the West, and in philosophical discussions of the idea of justice, it seems to be a given that justice must be at the level of the individual. That is, if you have done nothing wrong, you cannot be blamed because you are a member of a group that did something wrong. I can provide no reference, because it seems to be an implicit assumption, although (for all I know) references may abound. However, in Eastern countries, the importance of the group is often emphasised over the individual. I do not mean to say this is always present there, and never here, but the individualism of the West is a commonplace observation. It may seem that the collectivism of other societies could run contrary to the importance of the individual in matters of justice. Such may effectively be the case with blood feuds - someone has wronged your ancestor, you are part of the wronged group, so you take up the fight. But in jurisprudence and in higher level discussions, it seems that all societies agree that justice should focus on the individual. So that was all background.

I am wondering if anyone knows of any formal discussion of such an issue, that is, the potential conflict between the general spirit of collectivism, and the significance of the individual when apportioning blame, and dishing out punishments. I do not mean that such notions are contradictory, I merely want to see how these concerns are addressed in collectivist societies, where the group is strongly emphasised. I would welcome any scholarly references, but also even blogs by educated people from such cultures who are reflecting on such issues. I would take these sorts of things as essentially primary sources, since they show how people from these cultures think when confronting these concerns. IBE (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is. Geert Hofstede has spent his life researching and enumerating such cultural differences, and you would do well to read some of his books, particularly "Cultures and Organisations". Also Richard E Nisbett's book "The Geography of Thought" refers to the differences between Eastern and Western approaches to, for example, academic research. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice link. Following the refs led me to this on google books, although when they talk about cross-cultural perceptions of justice, they are making the aforementioned assumption. Eg. bottom of page 361: "retributive justice arises when one individual observers another's act that breaks a rule ..." (cut short here by google, just when it was getting really interesting). So unless they go on to talk about blood feuds and the like, they are making an individualist assumption, that it is about individuals doing things wrong, even when talking about collectivist-individualist cultural differences. Well, I find it interesting. More info welcome. IBE (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The individuality of Western justice is by no means an inherent aspect of Western culture. Christianity's very premise is the validity of collective punishment: Jesus can redeem the sins of mankind not because he committed those sins, but because punishment was considered transferable. All humans are tainted by Original Sin and all women have to suffer the pain of childbirth, not because these specific people did anything wrong, but because Adam and Eve disobeyed God's commands hundreds of generations ago.

If you read Shakespeare, you'll find no shortage of blood feuds. In colonial history, there's no shortage of massacres committed against native peoples in retribution for an attack by a small (and often unrelated) group of people. The only reason that collective punishment is not accepted today is because the West, unlike the Eastern countries you're referring to, has progressed beyond its barbaric past. In particular, the Enlightenment emphasized that "men are born and remain free and equal in rights" (Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen), "laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind" (Thomas Jefferson), and "The difference between the most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher and a common street porter, for example, seems to arise not so much from nature, as from habit, custom, and education" (Adam Smith). Enlightenment thinkers were skeptical of organized religion (see deism) and believed in the power of human reason to improve the world. It's not hard to see why, under this philosophy, each person was considered responsible for his own actions and only his own actions. If I get arrested and hanged simply because my dad committed a crime, I'm hardly "free and equal"; to the contrary, I'm being persecuted for my circumstances of birth, which I have no control over. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some good points. I confess I can't find much in our article on individualism, but my knowledge of history tells me that individualism itself has relatively recent beginnings, and does not go back to the dawn of Western civilisation. So you make the valid point that individual responsibility (in matters of justice) does not go hand-in-hand with Western political history, but do not seem to state the same for individualism itself. You don't contradict it either, but I feel it needs to be emphasised. The beginnings of Western individualism are to be seen (according to Burckhardt) in the Italian Renaissance, and according to what I read in the Times Atlas of World History, even earlier, in mediaeval times. This took some time to flourish, and may not have permeated the society until the Enlightenment. So it may not be a case of "progressing beyond barbarism", or the quickening influence of "habit, custom and education", but the natural growth of individualism as an idea and an ideal, which in turn influenced systems of government and jurisprudence. I am not trying to argue for such a case (indeed, I incline towards your approach), but I would not consider it settled as an issue of overcoming barbarism, rather than of cultural values. IBE (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What became of the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement in the '20 an '30 ?

Hello Learned Ones ! It seems to me the article Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement doesn't say how fruitful this agreement has been in the following years; & the blue link n° 1 seems to me to lead into cul-de-sac...It may not have been very "eupareunistic", since I notice that during the Great Purge, "espionnage for G.B." was frequently the reason for a bullet in the neck. Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers. T.y. PS : is "eupareunistic" (& "thanatophily") correct english ? Arapaima (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that most aspects of USSR-UK relations suffered a strong setback after the Zinoviev letter affair... AnonMoos (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the language question, "euparenuistic" isn't an English word (and I'm not really sure what it means - "good relations between states"? If so, the usual word in English is entente, despite it being French). "Thanatophily" isn't in the dictionaries, but it is understandable in English - we have Thanatophile and Thanatophilia (although I personally would disagree with the redirect - thanatophilia and necrophilia _aren't_ synonymous). Tevildo (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diet Pepsi and Pepsi Max?

What's the difference? Why market 2 drinks with the only obvious differences being that Diet Pepsi has <1% salt (Pepsi MAX has none) and Pepsi MAX has 1 calorie per 250ml (Diet Pepsi has 2). Is there something i'm missing? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 10:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Diet" anything is often seen as being a bit soft or womanly, so Pepsi thought that not many men would buy "Diet Pepsi". As such, they created "Pepsi Max" which has a bit more of a hardcore name to encourage sales from people who would feel embarrassed about buying a product with "Diet" written on the front. This should explain more. — Richard BB 11:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{edit conflict} Diet Pepsi is aimed at women, Pepsi Max is aimed at men. This article gives some background. The same dual marketing strategy is used by Coca Cola with Diet Coke (women) and Coke Zero (men). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coke Zero and Diet Coke have different formulations, not just different marketing strategies. The artificial sweeteners used and the actual tastes differ. --Thomprod (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the whole idea is that men like to imagine that they are somehow actively crushing those calories underfoot, rather than passively resisting them. Paul B (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been buying Diet Pepsi because i thought there was hidden crap in Pepsi Max. If it's just a gender stereotyping thing, then i'll stick with Diet Pepsi. I bought Pepsi Max in the week to see if it tasted different - that's the reason for the question. Thanks for the responses guys ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 11:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Max" in Pepsi Max refers to caffeine content; it has 69 mg compared to 38 mg in a can of standard Pepsi Cola.[15] Personally, I'd rather have a nice cup of tea. Alansplodge (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say on the bottle how much caffeine is in Diet Pepsi. Is it possible that Pepsi Max has a difference in the amount and is meant as a kind-of energy drink version? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 12:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Pepsi Max has nearly twice as much caffeine as Diet Pepsi - 115mg per 20fl oz for Max versus 59mg per 20fl oz for Diet. The figures are for the drinks as sold in the US - other markets may have different amounts. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is purely speculative, but look up shelf space... well, I guess not, but slotting fee provides a trace of insight on it. My impression is that the largest companies provide a really long line of products to distract the consumer from the fact that they've purchased total control over the supermarket and there isn't really any competition at all. Wnt (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing new flavors is also a way to steal market share, as there's a slight "novelty" bump from people who try it out (Oooh look, the new Bacon Pepsi! I'll have to try that). It doesn't last very long, which is why companies who use that as a marketing strategy need to keep a near constant stream of new products. --Jayron32 13:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All interesting replies. I'm thinking after seeing this that it's simply just Diet Pepsi is diet, while Pepsi Max is an energy drink with no sugar content. It seems that simple. Pepsi don't release new products often and i assume that's to avoid a New Coke moment. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 13:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsi is a very different business than Coke is. PepsiCo is a diversified food and beverage company that, besides making soft drinks, also makes snacks (FritoLay) and breakfast cereals (Quaker Oats) and formerly owned restaurants (Pizza Hut, KFC, etc.) and even at one time owned sporting goods brands (Wilson) and a trucking line (North American Van Lines). They've since divested themselves of the restaurants and non-food brands, but continue to have a wide variety of products and revenue streams. The Coca-Cola Company makes beverages only. So Coke has to manage it's beverage lines very carefully, and has different marketing strategies because it's a different kind of business than Pepsi, which can afford to run a smaller beverage product line, as it also dominates several other food-related markets. --Jayron32 15:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S. (but not other countries) they contain different sweeteners. Diet Pepsi has only aspartame while Pepsi Max has a mix of aspartame and acesulfame potassium. Pepsi Max also has ginseng extract. Rmhermen (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt

Why do other Arab countries in the middle east support the military coup? What did they have against the Muslim Brotherhood? 163.202.48.126 (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many are afraid that Islamist ideology will spread throughout Africa, that secularism will be eliminated, and that conservative, political Sharia law will become the governing principle, rather than more moderate forms of government. The Muslim Brotherhood were an Islamist group, and the military removed them from power. — Richard BB 14:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Middle Eastern Arab countries worry about the spread in Africa of fundamental Islamism? Those countries supporting the coup are by no means secular or moderate or democratic or whatever in this direction. Check [| this source] as to why the Muslim Brotherhood has a disturbed relationship with Saudi Arabia, which is the biggest supported of the coup. Other countries, like Bahrain, being Shia, are also of a different denomination of Islam, whereas the Muslim Brotherhood is Sunni. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to beards and support for cool, Western-style haircuts. μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, regarding Hamas, it is concerned with stability in Egypt, but do not care who is at charge there. And it certainly doesn't care with Richard's "spread throughout Africa, that secularism will be eliminated, and that conservative, political Sharia law will become the governing principle." Support for the coup is not about fighting fundamentalists. The supporters of the new government are by no means more Westernized, democratic or less radical. I'd even say that the Muslim Brotherhood is less radical that say Saudi Arabia. It's all about power, and threats to stability. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am the OP. I don't understand what the story is about beards and hair-cuts but this is a serious question. If you don't know the answer, that's fine - but please don't treat this as a silly question. Thanks to Osman and Richard for your answers. 105.236.76.120 (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's your problem if you don't think personal freedom matters. Instead of people throwing childish insults they should read the links provided. There's a large liberal contingent in these countries that does, including the young men I linked to in the head shaving article and the anti-Sharia/Muslim Brotherhood protesters chanting and tweeting "no more beards". Look at the anti-Islamist protests in Turkey of the same nature. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of the 1 vandal whose edit was quickly reverted, you seem to be the only one acting childishly. Your first link is an excerpt from this Daily Mail article, which claims that "BBC reporter tweeted that people were chanting 'no more beards' apparently aimed at the Muslim Brotherhood". Let's leave aside the fact that the Daily Mail is no epitome of reporting quality, and that it is reporting second-hand information without identifying the source. Even according to this Daily Mail article, opposition to beards has nothing to do with the issue; the beard is merely a symbol for MB members and Islamists in general. For more information on the role of facial hair in signifying religious beliefs, see this BBC article.

Your second link is about Hamas. It has nothing to do with Egypt, the coup, Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood, or even Hamas' reaction to the coup. It is completely unhelpful to the OP. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have something to say about the subject, Bowlhover, do so. The OP asked why other countries supported the uprising, what they ha against the Sharia supporting and Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. So far as I am aware it is the people of those countries that do, for the reasons I have given. The liberals don't want Islamism. I am not aware of any Arab/Islamic governments that have openly expressed their support, although they may be happy in private, for their own reasons, which I don't believe I have insulted anyone for commenting on. In any case, drop the personal nonsense and provide links according to your own understanding. μηδείς (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OP again. Look, I have read your links and you are entitled to your opinions, but I really don't think that support for the coup is driven by the way the MB members grow their beards or comb their hair. I think the comments and tweets you mention speak to what a certain type of beard symbolises. This question was inspired by the article on 2013 Egyptian coup d'état and I see now the section on the post-coup international response. Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon and Syria made comments supportive of the coup. 105.236.76.120 (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Medeis and @Richard: the question was why Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia supported the coup? They are not against the MB because they are against its fundamentalist views, have concerns for human rights, or want Egypt to become a democracy. They question is not why we should be against the MB, it's why Middle Eastern Arab countries are against it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't tell me if you mean the people of those countries or their regimes. I suspect that the sources I have given reflecting public attitude reflect public attitude. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sociology

Which are the given subjects when you study Sociology as a career?? Ms.Bono^(zootalk)^☆ 14:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean rather, "which careers are open to someone who has studied Sociology?" --TammyMoet (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or do you mean, "what topics are included in a course in Sociology"? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Itsmejudith and TammyMoet. Sorry, English is not my first language. I meant what topics are included in a course in Sociology: Thanks :) But you could answer both questions for me... ;) I am in my way to study Sociology at The University of Havana and I would like to be prepared. Ms.Bono^(zootalk)^☆ 14:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only on-line information I can find for the University of Havana is in Spanish (not surprising !), but if you do a Google search for "department of sociology undergraduate course list" you can see a cross section of topics covered in various undergraduate sociology programs. Or you can read our article on sociology, which has a "Scope and topics" section. As well as content-oriented courses, you can also expect to have modules on study skills, research skiils and quantitative methods/statistics. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Gandalf61. Thanks for your answer. Unfortunately I don't have Google access, or other sites. I just have access here www.wikipedia.org. So i cannot follow any links or do Google research. Thanks! Ms.Bono^(zootalk)^☆ 15:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have email you could use Web2PDF to browse the web using your email address. Compose an email message, type the URL of any web page in the body of that message and send it to submit@web2pdfconvert.com. The service will then fetch the corresponding web page on its own servers and will send it back it you as a PDF attachment – all this takes no more than a few seconds. For example, for searching for sociology and topics, you put "http://www.google.es/search?q=sociology+topics" in the subject of the email and send it to submit@web2pdfconvert.com. Alternatively, put http://nytimes.com as the subject or http://www.cnn.com. They'll send back an email with the Google search results or the corresponding page attached.

I don't know if this is legal or possible in your country. I don't know if internet use is restricted due to technical, economical or national security issues. So, do it at your own peril! 87.217.149.193 (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot :)... Ms.Bono^(zootalk)^☆ 17:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of sociology has it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 2 :) Ms.Bono^(zootalk)^☆ 17:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taking sociology trained me how to analyze data quickly into something meaningful. But I didn't even know there was anyone who couldn't access google! As an aside, how come she can't access google? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically that's for the OP to answer, but if she doesn't get back to you, she might have internet access at work, and google/most internet might be blocked. This happened to me in a previous job - we really needed wikipedia, but the web was just too much of a distraction. As for the course, and assuming it has probably been answered well enough, the only thing I can add is that I would expect a course in sociology to be quite flexible. IBE (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alba --> Murray/Salmond

This is gonna be speculation, but is Alex Salmond gonna fly down for the Wimbledon final now that Murray is [almost] through? Pnly 1 year to go...and if he makes it next year too then you got commonwealth games as well. What a climax?Lihaas (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should ask his office. How on earth would we know? Paul B (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Man of La Mancha

This might not be strictly referencable but what the hay... Should I read Don Quixote before seeing Man of La Mancha later this year? Dismas|^(talk) 20:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should read Don Quixote, period. It's great fun. Looie496 (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The theme of the novel is a would-be hero repeatedly makes a fool of himself in other's eyes. Given we are not allowed to give opinions I will not tell you to bother to read it. The musical is in English, of course. μηδείς (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The musical was not written with the idea that people who came to see it would be familiar with Don Quixote, and it's safe to say that most of the people who saw and enjoyed it had not read the tome on which it was based. Clearly reading Don Quixote is no prerequisite to enjoying the musical, which is not to say, of course, that it's not a good idea per se. - Nunh-huh 09:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of fiction on crime and criminals

There's a lively discussion on the effects that fictional works (movie, literature, etc.) have on crime. Are there any academic studies that examine if (and how much)

they increase the abundance and severity of crimes?
they help criminals to avoid convictions?

Thank you. 84.109.248.221 (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re question 1: a related discussion is that surrounding video games: the lines of evidence and the conclusions seem to be fairly similar. A good place to start is these youtube videos: nice and short and a bit longer. The last one is in three parts, about half an hour, but very good. Then there is our article Video game controversies. I can't find any article we have specifically on fiction, although I'm sure we must have one. There is a lot of research on this, dating back at least to the 60s and 70s, e.g. Sex Violence and the Media by Eysenck and Nias. IBE (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Excitation-transfer theory for a bit of the theoretical underpinnings, and do a control-F for the word "movie" to see the relevance. IBE (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the article Video game controversies says, the results are inconclusive. The same is true of Social effects of pornography.My reading of it all is that it seems we have to accept that for the average person exposure to such things desensitises somewhat and one might expect them to commit more crime, but the statistics under different laws indicate they lead to less crime overall, perhaps those who actually choose them can use them as an alternative and train to control themselves. Things sometimes just are not straightforward, it would be nice if someone could come up with an overall good solution to this conundrum. Dmcq (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the second part of the OP's question, I wonder if forensic science-based crime dramas, of which there are now so many, might be giving attentive criminals tips on how to avoid leaving any clues behind that might allow the police to identify them? --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly has affected how juries view forensic evidence. See CSI effect. -- 71.35.96.251 (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 6

Rankings of British Monarchs

So the other day, I was reading an article on the BBC's website about James Buchanan's legacy as one of the worst presidents -- he's usually at or near the bottom of most lists. Curious about that, I looked it up online and found our article Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States and the similar Historical rankings of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. I was wondering if there are similar lists (either on Wiki or not) of British monarchs. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the BBC panel's top three in various categories (although the same three are listed in the same order in all of them). And here's Andrew Roberts' (presumably this chap) list of the bottom ten. Amusingly enough, one of Roberts' choices is also in the BBC list. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That page is not a ranking, but a listing of arguments for the importance of the three contenders according to several criteria. Since it's a listing of positives, some of Henry VIII's strikingly negative personal characteristics (especially later in his reign) which got him onto that worst list go unmentioned... AnonMoos (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Here's one by a website named "Rankopedia", so give it whatever credence you may, but it gives the top 5 as Elizabeth I, Henry V, Victoria, Alfred the Great, and Edward III and the bottom five as Canute, Charles II, George V, Henry II, and Edward IV. This list by the BBC has the top 3 as Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, and Victoria, but doesn't rank beyond that. This site has a "top ten" which begins Henry II, Elizabeth I, Henry VIII, and Victoria. This list by the Daily Mail of the worst monarchs includes Henry VIII (he's a polarizing figure who seems to show up on both ends of many of these lists), Stephen, Mary I, George IV and Edward VIII. This list of the worst by the BBC includes Edward II, Mary Queen of Scots (considering both England and Scotland as predecessor states to the modern UK, which is a good way to do it), and George IV. If anyone asked me, I'd have to put (in no particular order) Elizabeth I, Victoria, Henry II, all near the top, with John, Stephen (having no successor take your name is usually a bad sign), Richard II, Henry III, and Richard III near the bottom (having widespread rebellion and/or being deposed or imprisoned during your reign is a sign things aren't going well). --Jayron32 03:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why Canute is one of the worst -- he was successful in his goal of incorporating England into a Scandinavian-based empire in a way that hasn't been done before or since. AnonMoos (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that list gets a little suspect near the bottom. George V is also not usually thought of as a particularly bad monarch, while usually despised monarchs like John, Stephen, etc. get off rather lightly on that particular list. All of these always carry a YMMV disclaimer. --Jayron32 03:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Rankopedia" appears to merely arrange the list according to the votes of anyone who turns up. So far only 27 people have voted. I guess Canute is there because some arbitrary ignoramuses vaguely remembered that he tried to stop the tide. Also, their picture of Henry II depicts Henry II of France. How he and Edward IV can be at the bottom of the list when both their hopeless predecessors get off scot free is a mystery that only the "27" can answer. Paul B (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the three-way arguments in favor of Henry, Elizabeth and Victoria, I see repeated mention of praise of establishing Protestantism in England. Yet theologically neither of the Tudors embraced Calvinism or even Lutheranism; they simply opposed papal supremacy (no more than JFK) and Victoria reigned while Catholics were re-enfranchised. Nowadays the CoE is moribund, while conversion to Catholicism has been the trend amongst believers since the mid-1800's. What, exactly explains the glorification of Tudor "Protestantism" other than as a political resistance of the powerful non-Protestant France and Spain? μηδείς (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be rude to the CofE please; "Moribund" is overstating the case. The fact that Anglicans think that the founding of Anglicanism is a good thing shouldn't be surprising, and that Anglicanism isn't Calvinism is self-evident. Alansplodge (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, I have no idea if your comment on the two religious groups is correct or not but I would point out that without a reference it is your opinion. And two sections earlier you stated that "we are not allowed to give opinions". CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I agree with μηδείς on the substance, but your logic is faulty. "There are infinitely many prime numbers" is a fact, even if I don't reference it to Euclid. A fact does not cease to be a fact because it is not sourced. It may make it easier to dismiss it as "only an opinion", but again, that dismissal has no bearing on the actual state of the statement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have asked a question. I am not arguing for a claim. I want to know if these authors are saying the Tudors were important because the advent of the Church of England was important, or if they are arguing they were good because the advent of Protestantism was good. My understanding is that most people view Henry's split as cynical and politically motivated, and view Elizabeth's attempt at an accommodation ("no windows into men's souls") as her best attribute, not her mere protestantism. Second, moribund is not an insult--it's a fact. The Church of England now has less than 2% weekly attendance, halved in the last 50 years, while Catholic affiliation has almost doubled over the last hundred. This is not even to mention non-belief and Islam and other sects. So my question stands. Are the BBC authors reflecting a widespread opinion in England that the Tudors were good or important because of their role in protestant history? If so, is that a theological viewpoint? A nationalist one? An Objective one based on national interest or human rights? μηδείς (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any great emphasis on the Church of England in the BBC website. It's referred to a few times, yes, but is given no more prominance than cultural, military and administrative achievements. For the most part it seems to be mentioned because it's significant in creating the culture England/Britain as we understand it. Henry and Elizabeth are important because they essentially founded the "English State" of the modern era. Victoria creates a modern "symbolic" monarchy. However, I don't think it essentially matters whether or not the C of E is currently "moribund" as a religion. Essentially it represents the subordination of the church to the state, which, one could argue, is a major step towards de facto secularisation. However one understands it, it's a major development. The British Empire is also "moribund", but that does not alter its world-changing historical significance. Paul B (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Medeis's question is, is the ranking in terms of "important", or in terms of "good"? There's no question that Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were extremely important, but by my lights they were both tyrants. (BTW the rankings of US presidents tend to suffer from a bias in favor of activism, which to my mind is generally a bad trait in a president; something similar might be going on here.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we are still talking about the BBC pages, the historians quoted do seem to oscillate between "important" and "good" arguments - which I think is mainly because they are equating "important" with "making Britain (or England) a major and influential nation", which is "good" for Britain: and thus the Big Three are "great" monarchs. They certainly don't mean good in the sense of "virtuous". Whether Protestantism is or is not good as such (or "theologically") is obviously another matter altogether, but the language used by the historians quoted certainly seems to imply that they think it was good for Britain. Paul B (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trovatore is reading me correctly. Also, note that Victoria is praised by the same authorities, but her liberalization of the treatment of Catholics contradicts with Henry's split and Elizabeth's solidification of Protestant rule. I guess I'll have to settle for the fact that the BBC rankings were basically top-ten type lists in a pop-forum. You do run into the same problem with presidents. Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Richard Nixon are rightly considered highly important, even great presidents, but none of them was, in my opinion, a good president. On the reverse, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland and Howard Taft were very good presidents but rarely considered important or "great" in the way even Nixon could be. μηδείς (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely such a ranking would depend on your point of view. A republican might put Charles I at the top of his "worst" list, or a Northern Irish Catholic might put William III (William of Orange) at the top of his "worst" list. Are there any objective criteria for such a ranking? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC article on US presidents here, incidentally, does have a fairly "objective" list, ranking presidents by "Peace, Prosperity and Liberty", which puts Tyler (!) at the top and Polk (!!) at the bottom (well, ahead of Dubya, but that's a given). I'm sure it would be possible to put together a similar assessment of English/UK monarchs - as a non-historian, I wouldn't be surprised if Edward VII were at the top and George V at the bottom. Would it be impermissible speculation if our resident historians were to opine on this question? Tevildo (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Not a historian but) I like Edward VIII. Sure, his politics were a little dodgy, but he didn't really do anything about them. And it's true that he didn't know how to do anything after abdication except be a useless aristocrat, but was that his fault? What else had he ever been taught? I like him for looking at the whole deal (give up your personal life to serve the nation; in exchange we'll make it extremely comfortable) and saying, nah. --Trovatore (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't know about that. Apart from the abdication speech, his most famous quote is "Something must be done" [about the poverty of the Welsh miners] - he was heading for a greater involvment in politics than one expects from a 20th-century king, and (as you point out) his other political views were decidedly out of step with modern ideals of social justice. But, it's true, he didn't have time to do any actual damage, and he _did_ show us how to tie a tie properly. Tevildo (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From "something must be done", people assume he was going to meddle outside his accepted responsibilities? I think that's a lot of stew from one oyster. But it's a good example of one reason that I don't like the monarchy. These people are born into a very unnatural role where they have to be more symbols than persons, a gilded cage with unlimited creature comforts but without the basic liberties the rest of us take for granted. Not too many of them have the guts to call bullshit on the whole thing. Edward perhaps did not demonstrate exceptional courage in any other aspect of his life, but at least he got that one right, at least that one time. --Trovatore (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the only good monarchs are those who choose, well, not to be monarchs? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. --Trovatore (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Famous editors on Wikipedia

Are there any famous editors .? I mean a serious non-vandalizing editor who has gotten some sort of fame or recognition for their work? I don't know if this has been discussed before.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been asked whether any editors have become professional writers. Try searching the archives. Someone will probably answer anyway if they do know an example, but the only one I can think of was the fraud with the supposed theological degree. μηδείς (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles, although to my mind it doesn't adequately distinguish between those who're just here to edit their own article and talk about themselves, and those who actively participate in the encyclopedia in general. Few would meet even a generous definition of "famous", however. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 09:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Hari? Horatio Snickers (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was a minor reporter for a major paper for a while. Some sort of recognition in the byline, but never shared my photo, so was never really recognized. Couldn't get free meals like Jimbo Wales might, or likely even a Wiki article. But I did briefly feel notable. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:32, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

We generally don't discuss private identities of editors, as per Wikipedia:OUTING. However, there have been quite a few prominent persons engaged in WP:COI editing. --Soman (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Ebert is pretty famous. Matt Deres (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian David Josephson won a Nobel in physics and edits a variety of articles. Others edited mainly their own articles and articles related to their interests, and publicly identified themselves: The woman who led the drive against hocus-pocus black box voting machines in US elections: Bev Harris, and a former head of SDS: Michael Klonsky. Edison (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On both the French and English Wikipedias, the Bogdanov brothers repeatedly rewrote the article about them to erase embarrassing information. --Bowlhover (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In his autobiographical Over Time, published last year, Frank Deford indicated he had made some corrections to an article about one of his books. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two that I've come across are Chip Berlet and Michael Everson... AnonMoos (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What languages did Robespierre speak?

I'm trying to research Robespierre's early life via the internet, and I'm unable to find an answer to the question in the subject line. What languages, apart from French, did Robespierre speak? I'm particularly interested to know if he spoke English, and if he could read and write in it as well.

I suspect that he only spoke French, though I can find no page that explicitly confirms this.

thanks,

I found some sources saying he was quite skilled at Latin, and a biography saying that he had to take French, Latin and some Greek in grammar school. (Robespierre, a Revolutionary Life by Peter McPhee, p. 1,713) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I doubt that 1,713 is the correct page number, the google book seems to have the page numbers all messed up and it's impossible to say what the correct page number is. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is p. 16. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Eulenspeigel and Pp.paul.

jack thompson

Thompson tried to ban games like gta, manhunt etc. but 1 Amendment (remember out of my head) says that things can not be prohibited on the basis of its contents unless it is child pornography. then it would not have been impossible to get the games banned if he won the trials or he would also change the 1 amendment?--80.161.143.239 (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is very unclear. What do you want to know? Which of these Jack Thompsons are you talking about? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Thompson (activist) is a former Florida attorney who attempted to ban violent video games more than a few times, most notably Grand Theft Auto. I'm not sure he cared the slightest about the 1st amendment as it relates to video games. As our article on him states, he does not accept that freedom of expression even applies, as he believes these games to be "murder simulators". He believes that violent video games beget violent people, and sought to get them banned, or at least rendered extremely difficult to procure. Mingmingla (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does he approve of toy handguns for kids? HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't say. If you Google "jack thompson" and "toy gun" in two double-quoted search terms, you get quite a few hits, but so far I haven't seen one where they're directly connected (not that I've tried that hard). In this link he appears to want to ban a "gaming gun", which I'm not sure exactly what it is but my guess would be that it's a video-game controller, so I suppose that's a sort of toy gun, but probably not what you have in mind. --Trovatore (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prydain and Middle Earth

When I was a lad in grade three, my aunt gave me a copy of The Book of Three, the first part of Lloyd Alexander's Chronicles of Prydain series. I enjoyed it very much and read the rest of the series. However, I never really got into fantasy fiction. Fast forward (several) years and I'm sitting in a theatre watching the first film of The Lord of the Rings and I'm getting a very weird feeling of having read all this before. I bought the LOTR books and have read them through several times since then. I am just now re-reading the Prydain works and again, the feeling that these two works are extremely similar is just overwhelming.
Now obviously they draw from many of the same sources (I suspect Sauron and Arawn may share an ancestor), so some similarities are to be expected, but it really does seem to be over the top. Google searching brings up forum posts and blog entries of varying coherency; is there any kind of serious literary criticism that discusses this? Any comments from Tolkein himself? Our article on Gurgi hilariously suggests that the film version of Gollum was somehow reminiscent of the film version of Gurgi, while ignoring the rather obvious opposite conclusion: the literary Gurgi is a complete rip-off of the literary Gollum. Is this one of those things that people just don't talk about? Matt Deres (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord of the Rings came out a decade earlier, and spawned many imitators. You'll note Tolkien made his languages resemble Welsh and Finnish, while Prydain and Arawn are just flat out Celtic. μηδείς (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've usually seen the discussion framed as both using some similar sources (Welsh mythology and language) rather than as a matter of imitation. For example, this forum thread - which also suggests a number of good books on Tolkien's use of existing mythologies. For an example of discussion of Alexander's sources: [16] [17]. 184.147.144.173 (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien's own notes have been published, and while he was familiar with Celtic mythology (which I think he described as "mad") it is obvious that any resemblance between Sauron and Arawn is coincidental and convergent. See Sauron#Concept_and_creation. μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 7

Charles Gordon Hopkins

Does anybody know the birth date and death date of Charles Gordon Hopkins (1822-1886)? He was an uncle of Gerard Manley Hopkins who served as Hawaii's Minister of the Interior.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last supper vessels and utensils.

Considering the norm of the time, and the circumstance of the occasion, what would be the nature of the vessels and utensils likely to be used in the last supper. Wooden, metallic, glass, clay? Would the drinking vessel referred to as the 'holy grail', be an non-descript clay cup, likely to thrown out, once it has reached its useful lifetime? Would they have used a low table, or none at all? What niceties would the host likely be able to provide his guests, would the guests have to sit on the floor, or on pillows, or something else? Paint me a picture what would have been the likely scene? Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Start with Passover Seder and see where it leads you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That does not address any of my questions. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me of this oldie: What did Jesus say at the Last Supper? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? (...of relevance?) Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Western education culture

i'm from india and this is actually a two-fold question.

1) it's very common in my country for teachers to hold grudges against students for really petty matters, like "not paying respect", "not solving a problem exactly as told to" and so on. and many a times, this grudge translates to less grades in the final exams, even though the student deserved more grades. my question is: does this happen in the West?

2) my next question is about something what we call "the management quota" in Indian colleges. what this essentially means is that many kids "buy" their way into a college. maybe you don't know about Indian colleges' admission procedure, but we have a number of screening tests during admission, including national ones (IITJEE and AIEEE) and private ones which are for individual colleges. now, many-a-times, students who haven't got a good rank in those exams pay a helluva lot more than what they normally would and "buy" their way into a college. sometimes, it's not money but contacts and influence. for this reason, a huge number of colleges "reserve" a specific percentage of seats just for these students with rich and famous parents who would happily pay more to get into a college. my question: does this too happen in the West? do people just "buy" their kids seats?