Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

September 4

home prices in the us

are houses right on the shoreline generally more expensive than inland homes in the united states? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.105.6 (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Valuable, yes. μηδείς (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Having a career as a real estate agent for many years, I can say that houses right on the shoreline in the United states (especially California) are considerably more expensive than inland homes. --LordGorval (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

According to this website there are at least ten U.S. cities where the average listing price for a home in the first six months of this year exceeded $1.2 million. The majority of these are located on or near the California Coast. --LordGorval (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

When you compare similar houses, the shoreline is considerably more expensive. When you compare average shoreline houses versus average inland houses, the difference becomes bigger. Shoreline lots are expensive and tend to get expensive homes. People who can afford an expensive lot usually don't want a cheap house on it. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Lietchenstein

How did Lietchenstein survive German mediatization? It was smaller than many of the secular states which were mediatized. Was it because of their connection with Austria?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Liechtenstein was elevated to a Reichsfürstentum by the Holy Roman Emperor in 1719, and was thus a fief of the Holy Roman Empire. When the empire dissolved in 1806, it no longer had any imperial overlord. Liechtenstein stayed on friendly terms with the Habsburgs both when they were Holy Roman Emperors, and when they ruled as emperors of Austria, and Liechtenstein is only accessible from Austria and Switzerland. At the end of the day, it is probably the isolatedness that saved its independence. Valentinian ^{T / C} 01:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The Germans probably had a hard time finding Lietchenstein on the map. As for Liechtenstein, it didn't border Germany proper, just Austria and Switzerland. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Liechtenstein was proclaimed a member of the Confederation of the Rhine and hence a sovereign and independent state on 12 July 1806 by Napoleon. After the battle of Austerlitz Napoleon was at the culmination of his power and did not ask Johann I Joseph, Prince of Liechtenstein or the Emperor in Vienna for advice on this matter. Hence it was Napoleon's strategy that made Liechtenstein survive the German mediatization. Interestingly the Wikipedia article on the Confederation of the Rhine has a figure of 4,000 soldiers to be contributed by Liechtenstein to the Confederation of the Rhine in case of war. This number is so extremely unlikely that I perused the original document: Article 38 of the constitution of the Confederation of 12 July 1806 states "... and all other princes shall contribute in case of war together 4000 men" (source text, source text). Hence all the figures for the smaller territories (each listed with 4000 men) are nonsense. Liechtenstein contributed say, about 40 men, not 4000 men. It contributed 55 men to the army of the German Confederation in 1818 (source text). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I changed Liechtenstein's contingent from 4,000 to 40 men: contribution, (source text). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Discrimination against people on the basis of how they smell

Is there a term for it or even research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.65.29.23 (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

in general most protected classes in discrimination are becuase it's not something a person really has that much control over: that would seem to me to mean that you can usually discriminate based on smell. (This is not legal advice). For example, if someone smells due to their refusing to shower, you can probably discriminate. However, I can imagine a situation where their "natural" smell, could just be an excuse or a proxy for really discriminating on a different basis; e.g. 'smelling like a woman'. (i.e. based on whatever moisterizer, shampoo, or whatever else a person uses - women's products can probably be differentiated by smell from men's products, for example.) I would imagine it's definitely illegal for an employer to state "I'm firing you because I don't like the way you smell" when in fact this is a basis for discriminating on an actual protected basis like being a woman. Otherwise anyone could decide they don't like the smell of women's products and successfully fire all their female staff on this basis, without actually firing anyone 'for being a woman'. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The question is not coherent. Does the OP mean discrimination against individuals based on their actual individual body odor? Does he mean discrimination against groups of people on their collective ability to distinguish odors? If this is a serious question, it needs to be stated clearly. μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

One relatively recent example of your first interpretation which also made into a number of news media was the "'Smelly' Family Kicked Out Of Paris' Musée D'Orsay". ---Sluzzelin talk 22:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

There is certainly research on how we react to body odours of various kinds, positive and negative ones. See Pheromone. Many animals certainly "disciminate" using smell. However "odorism" and "odourism" get no google hits. The story linked by Sluzzelian does come up when you type in "smellism" [1] Paul B (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

financial projections

If for whatever reason we historically subtracted from each U.S. state budget the same proportion of that state's GDP, that the CIA and NSA have as a proportion of the national budget today, and we replayed history with this subtraction in place (no other chnage), from the founding of the United States until today, would America still have been able to grow 1) to its continental size, 2) a global superpower?

What I mean is that imagine that all the 13 colonies and then the states, each had to have the financial burden (no other change) of that extra cost.

That is the text of my question, for context I am thinking about all the stupid spying, intelligence, counterintelligence, coups d'etat (assassinating each other's congressmen and replacing them etc, protecting against same) etc etc etc that America saved by not having its 50 states have to have a budget toward each other the way it does today versus foreign powers.

This seems to me (along with border stuff) a HUGE savings!!! But how big...just a few percentage faster growth or America, or could America have risen as a power under that baggage?

Note: I am ONLY interested in the financial part. i.e. I'm not asking about actually creating those interstate departments; rather, what happens if that money disappeared from states' budgets

That's why I narrowly titled my post about financial projections. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

China, Brazil, Canada and other countries with multiple sub-national governments (states or provinces) don’t spend vast sums on one province spying on another or seeking to overthrow a rival governor. Hence, the basic premise needs to be rethought. On your implication that the activities of the US intelligence agencies are ‘stupid,’ I suspect that it is extremely unlikely that successful intelligence operations would be selected by those who revel such activities for the purpose of making ALL such operations appear counterproductive.DOR (HK) (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Right, neither China nor the US states spend money spying on provinces/states within themselves. I am asking about if they did... Ho wmuch would this have slowed their development as nations? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

So you're asking... if, somehow, the individual states of the Union were paranoid enough toward each other that they would spy on each other, but not enough to levy funds to install border controls, interstate tarriffs, substantially larger state militias, and all the other baggage and costs they saved by subsuming those functions to the federal government as prescribed in the Constitution? So, pretend that the states have an interest in clandestine surveillance or even occasional wet operations here and there amongst each other, but that they nevertheless still have open commerce and migration and never need to fear war with each other? It's pretty hard to imagine a set of circumstances which would give rise to such a situation; the fears that would lead to spending money on intelligence would first lead to spending money on border protection and military capabilities. Be that as it may, we don't actually know what the true budgets of these departments are: a lot of it is hidden in extra incidental costs for other appropriations, black budgets, and the like (to say nothing of their extracurricular activities...). ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Not really - I'd like you to imagine the things you describe and come up with a number - then simply subtract that number from the states' coffers, without any actual change. (i.e. no actual paranoia, spying, etc.) Let me make an analogy. Obviously if every year one penny disappeared from each state's coffers, that would not have had a material affect on History. Now instead of one penny, I'm asking you to imagine the amount of funds disappearing that is the same percentage of each state's budget at that time, as the NSA and CIA are a percentage of the national GDP today. In other words, the only thing that interests me is the financial consequences of removing that amount of money. No ACTUAL policy consequences interest me. It would be as if I considered the NSA and CIA doing nothing but draining money and doing zero with it. If we multiply that for 50 (and one for each state historically) and replay history, would that 'drain' (without any benefit) have affected the state's capacities materially? (Due to their budgets being that much smaller with that money disappearing.) 178.48.114.143 (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you postulated a reason why the individual states would feel the need to conduct (counter-) intelligence operations against each other? States, national or otherwise, tend to avoid spending money on nonexistent threats.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

French revolution death

I want to know the approximate death numbers during the French revolution, not just those who were executed (not a guess but a number from a good source). All the deaths that were not natural must be included.184.97.201.174 (talk) 06:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

According to Charles Issawi, The Costs of the French Revolution, 58 American Scholar 371 (Summer 1989), the number of victims was well over 100,000, perhaps close to twice that number. Issawi suggests that to this should be added the casualties of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, which were probably over one million Frenchmen, with the combined casualties of France's enemies probably of a comparable order of magnitude. René Sédillot, Le Coût de la Révolution Française (Paris 1987), which I have not seen personally, apparently put the human losses at about two million. John M Baker (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

red baiting/lavender baiting

You have listings on red baiting and lavender baiting, but you don't actually say what the baiting consisted of - how it was done. Has anyone more information on this topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.4.14 (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The red baiting article describes it perfectly well. It's nothing more than the hyperbolic partisan trash-talking; whenever you hear some talking head on TV who claims there's no difference between Obama and Stalin, that's red baiting. 87.115.114.201 (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Or equating Bush to Hitler, which could be called blue-baiting, if there is such a term. But what's lavender-baiting?

Oh, I see - lavender scare. And having found that article just now, there's a bit of editorializing there: "Because the psychiatric community regarded homosexuality as a mental illness..." No, it's because there was a social and legal stigma that could lead to blackmail. What the psych community may have thought was only a part of that. And there's still a social stigma, despite the progress made in the last 40 years or so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

German or American insignia

I have a picture from 1995 showing Lee H. Hamilton meeting with Volker Rühe in his capacity as minister of defence. In the background stands a man wearing what appears to be a military dress uniform (he has stripes at the ends of his sleeves), but other than these stripes and his buttons, the only distinctive element is an insignium, and that's what I'm trying to identify. There's an anchor with "arms" (or whatever you call the broad parts at the bottom) that are placed at a rather shallow angle: if the point of the anchor were placed in the middle of the clock, the arms would point between 9 and 10 o'clock and 2 and 3 o'clock respectively. The anchor is inscribed in a circle, and three short horizontal lines come out from the bottom of the circle; it's basically the following ASCII drawing, with an anchor included:

               X  X  X
           X      |      X 
         X        |        X
        X         |         X
        X         |         X
        X         |         X
=========Xq       |       qX=========
===========X      |      X===========
===============X  X  X===============

The pipe characters are the vertical part of the anchor, while the arms go from the bottom of the vertical part to the spots where the "q" characters are located; they're only there for the illustration, since I can't draw the arms with ASCII.

All this being said, can anyone identify the insignium in question? As I noted above, it's a meeting of German and American leaders, so the guy could be from either country. He wears the insignium on his right breast. His sleeve stripes are a group of five stripes adjacent to each other, with two larger stripes above and separate from each other; it's basically like what you'd get if you mixed the two top stripes from File:US Navy O9 insignia.svg with the stripes of File:19 - kpt zs.GIF. I couldn't find anything relevant when looking through sources on American insignia (either military or otherwise), and everything on German insignia from Google talks about World War II, as if 1945 were the last time that Germany had any military or diplomatic ranks whatsoever. 2001:18E8:2:1020:E930:DADC:A843:594D (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Did it look anything like the Seefahrerabzeichen pictured in the article on German Wikipedia (see link)? --Sluzzelin talk 15:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

That's definitely it! It's a slightly flatter form of File:Seefahrerabzeichen der Deutschen Marine in Silber.jpg. Thanks a lot for the help; I asked for help at my library's reference desk, but they couldn't help. 2001:18E8:2:1020:7DD1:77A7:107C:D07F (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic remark: I notice that you used the word insignium as the singular of insignia. Not a bad guess, but not correct — the actual singular is insigne. Third-declension neuter, I think, after a brief search to refresh my Latin declensions. --Trovatore (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Didn't know that. I can't remember ever seeing "insigne" before, but the OED agrees with you. 2001:18E8:2:1020:7DD1:77A7:107C:D07F (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW the "arms" at the bottom of an anchor are actually called "arms", the blades at the end are called "flukes".[2] The device of an anchor with a rope snaking around it is called a "fouled anchor". Alansplodge (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Are Catholic priests allowed to consume delicacies, sweets, and spicy foods?

Are Catholic priests allowed to consume delicacies, sweets, or spicy foods, or are these types of food too luxurious for clergymen? 164.107.102.228 (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I've known several priests and I've never seen them pass up food just because it's too luxurious. In fact one priest I knew loved cooking and was pretty much the only one that cooked for all the other priests in the parish. Dismas|^(talk) 17:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe there is a blanket prohibition of any food item in Catholicism. Rather, food prohibitions in Catholicism tend to take the form of time-specific things. At least historically, there were a number of fast days in the Catholic calendar, where all Catholics were told to abstain from luxuries, particularly food luxuries. Lent was one of the big ones. With Vatican II most of those restrictions were lifted, at least for the laity. I would not be surprised, though, if there various fast days still in place specifically for priests. I'm guessing also that a fair number of older priests, who were ordained prior to Vatican II, still adhere to the old prohibitions even though they technically don't have to. (I know a few catholic non-priests who still do the whole-year no-meat-on-Friday thing.) Even younger priests may voluntarily fast for spiritual reasons. ("I will voluntarily give up sweets, using my small sacrifice to reflect on the greater sacrifice Jesus made.") - "To luxurious for the clergy at any time of the year" isn't really at thing in Catholic theology, though. -- 205.175.124.72 (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Add me to the "I never heard of such a thing, in general" list. Priests take a vow of poverty, but that doesn't generally seem to mean they're not allowed physical comforts. There might be some ascetic orders that would require abstinence from such foods, but I'm speculating there. --Trovatore (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• There are a number of monastic orders such as the Benedictines, Carthusians, and Cistercians for whom austerity is part of the vow, but the rules often tended to relax over time. Mendicants groups such as the Dominicans and Franciscans were also supposed to live a simple life, but became notorious for abuses. There is no rule of austerity that applies to Catholic priests in general, though. Looie496 (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

All this while keeping in mind that gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins. --Xuxl (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Charles II of Navarre

Where was Charles II of Navarre buried? Did his remains survived the fire that killed him? How true it is the story of his death? Was the servant girl punished for killing the king?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

According to findagrave.com (wonderful name!), "The Bad" Charles II of Navarre is buried in Pamplona Cathedral. Alansplodge (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Although Navarre & La Rioja, Spain: Frommer's ShortCuts says that his heart is buried at the Church of Santa Maria in Ujué. Alansplodge (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I found The common tomb of kings and queens of Navarre at Pamplona - there doesn't seem to be much elbow room! Alansplodge (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Cutting in movies and literature

What was the first movie and book to depict self-harm as it is known today. Religious self-flagellation and actual suicide attempts don't count. I'm talking about straightforward cutting.

One possible candidate I can think of is The Brothers Karamazov, which has a scene where a troubled girl deliberately slams a door on her fingers until her fingers bleed. But that's not exactly cutting.--24.228.82.34 (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Your distinction is arbitrary. "Cutting" is what they call it nowadays. There's no reason to think the psycho-physiological cause is different in things like wearing hair shirts or beating oneself with straps. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. That isn't helpful. My point is that it's easy to find depictions of religious self-flagellation, going back many hundred of years; that's not what I'm interested in. I am just interested in researching the history of depictions of secular self-harm and when were the earliest examples. Thank you.--24.228.82.34 (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You're entitled to draw your own arbitrary lines in the sand, but accounts of self harm are documented from Leviticus 19:28 "You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead" through Hieronymus Bosch and early insane asylums. The fact that a source like Leviticus is a religious source doesn't mean it depicts a sacrament rather than a mental condition. I don't know what your interest is (you can explain), but my lack of knowledge of your context doesn't justify your making bodily noises. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I cannot find a precise definition, but I believe our OP is looking for the cutting behavior that I will describe as so: A person, typically a teenager or young adult, cutting him/herself, on the upper arms or legs where the wounds may be hidden, not in an attempt to commit suicide, but as a way to deal with stress or depression. The person may report that he/she cuts him/herself "So I would feel something - feel anything". The OP is suggesting that this is distinct from people who are cutting themselves or religious reasons, or because they are so insane they do not know what they are doing. It is often associated with emo culture. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not unfamiliar with that depiction of it in the press, even though it occurred and was known publicly a few millennia before there was such a thing as goths, let alone emos. Even birds and mammals in distress will engage in this behavior in captivity. (Presumably animals not in captivity do so also, but get eaten by predators before being noticed by naturalists.) If the IP OP is not interested in this phenomenon before the 90's (or maybe 80's) when it became a topic under the name "cutting" in the modern press, that's fine. But it would be a disservice to let him think the phenomenon didn't exist before the name he gives it existed, any less than it would be intellectual fraud to pretend homosexuality didn't exist before the term gay did. μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I think a big point you're missing is just because some stuff are related doesn't mean someone has to be interested in it, there's nothing wrong with being mostly interested in particular aspect of something. To use your example, a person who wants to learn about modern Western gay subculture isn't pretending homosexuality didn't exist beforehand just because they don't want to hear about what the ancient Greeks did. I also question your assumption that these behaviours are highly related, to me cutting as we're talking about here probably has more similarities to some cases of teens stealing their parents car and going joy riding at very high speeds (particularly those who don't want to get caught or invite friends) or some cases of a teen who regularly gets in to fights or who uses drugs to an extreme level than many cases of religious self-flagellation. Nil Einne (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The book Cutting and the Pedagogy of Self-disclosure, discusses cutting in literature. In the page I can read in preview, it mentions five novels, the earliest of which is Girl, Interrupted (1993), but presumably there is more in the actual book. It was based on a 2004 master's thesis at the University of Albany called "Contagion in Cutting" by Patricia Hatch Vallace. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Addtion: References to self-injurious behavior can be found as far back as the writings of Herodotus. He describes a Spartan leader as publicly mutilating himself over most of his body (Favazza, 1998). In the bible, a man is described as crying aloud among the tombs and was said to “cut himself with stones.” (Mark 5:5)184.147.119.141 (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

That said, "self harm" was not something that I was aware of as a teenager in 1970s London; although there were some quite disturbed individuals at my school, it didn't seem to enter anybody's heads to cut their arms up. I don't remember hearing anything about it until well into the 1980s when it seemed to become a common thing for teenagers to do. I can't cite any references for this but it seems to fit in with the idea of a "contagion" quoted above. Alansplodge (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There are a couple of candidates for the first article or book (from a scholarly point of view) at Self_mutilation#History. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I remember being quite shocked at what Rod Steiger's character did to his hand in The Pawnbroker (1964). Others no doubt were noticing the lady flashing her big boobs, so they may have been temporarily blinded and missed it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Where do Catholic priests live?

I know that Catholic monks and nuns live in monasteries. The monasteries become their home, where they work and eat in simplicity and frugality. However, Catholic priests do not appear to be so confined to the spiritual retreats and would regularly interact with laypersons. So, do they live in the cathedral, and if so, what part of the cathedral? Is it possible for an orphan child to be raised in the monastery and grow up to be a monk or nun, working as a scribe and illuminating manuscipts all day long in fancy calligraphy? 164.107.103.94 (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

They can just live in a normal house like everyone else, but they usually live in a rectory attached to (or close to) the church (not inside of it). A bishop with a cathedral would have a larger house, although it's not inside the cathedral either. The richer and more powerful bishops typically used to live in a large manor, and we have several articles about Bishop's Palaces. As for orphan children, I don't know if that's possible now (monks do not usually copy out manuscripts all day anymore), but yes, that certainly would have been possible in the Middle Ages. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Can they, and do they, live with their families? You know, mothers and fathers, siblings, cousins, nieces, and nephews? 164.107.103.94 (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Some Catholic priests are parish priests, who typically live in a presbytery or similar house near their parish church(es). Some Catholic priests are "religious" priests, who join religious communities and hence are choir monks. 86.163.2.116 (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is an interesting article that discusses the proper age of entering the monastery throughout the ages: here. 164.107.103.94 (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

In some places, dioceses have mandated the construction of rectories. This happened in Cincinnati in the early twentieth century, for example. Go to Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches and read some of the parish articles that it links; some of them have sections on the parish rectories. Entry #2, Cassella, is particularly relevant because it talks about the pastor's change of residence. 2001:18E8:2:1020:E054:F577:E495:113D (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• The punchline is "in the woods", right? μηδείς (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I forgot the name, help me please

Which is the method of socio-economic inquiry based upon a idealist interpretation of economic development, an empirical view of social change, and an analysis of ethnic/race-relations and conflict within a society? Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.252.216.220 (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I hear that very question almost every day. It seems to come up a lot, around the water cooler. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not homework. Im just curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.252.216.220 (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Liberalism. 71.246.154.137 (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

September 5

"Collectivism"

I'm having trouble understanding what the word "collectivism" entails. What does it mean for a society to be "collectivist" or for someone to be a "collectivist"? How does this juxtapose with "individualism" exactly? It's meaning appears sort of dodgy. I've been reading some classical liberal/libertarian material (or rants) lately, and it seems like their use more or less means "authority". — Melab±1 ☎ 03:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "dodginess" you're talking about. Collectivism is just simply the opposite of individualism. A collectivist society or person values the group over the individual. What else do you want to know? --Trovatore (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I suppose there's a wide variability in whether the people are that way culturally, due to their religion, or are forced to act that way by laws. StuRat (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

"Dodgy" meaning unclear, incoherent, or contextually-variant. — Melab±1 ☎ 04:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, pretty much all words are contextually variant. I don't see anything unclear or incoherent, though. --Trovatore (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm only capable of seeing a group as a plurality, so the mindset expressed by the term is foreign to me and hence difficult to understand. Collectivism as such appears to collapse into relations between individuals. — Melab±1 ☎ 11:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The Kibbutz in Israel is a "collective," an economic entity organized among citizens in their place of residence with an entirely shared economy: ownership of the means of production and distribution of income.^ Internal policies are set by direct representation (a vote by all members on proposals presented by officeholders or committees). There are laws in the State of Israel pertaining to kibbutz members, e.g. prohibiting ownership of other land, the community covers the individual's tax obligation's, etc. The article here is largely historical, though, and may not offer much of an explanation. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

^ (edited to add): The kibbutz is the employer of the resident-members, in production and service branches. The latter include a communal kitchen/dining room serving three meals a day, a communal laundry, onsite daycare from age 3 months and holiday day camp for school-age children. So much of the income is distributed in services: meals, laundry, child care, administration and landscaping, etc. AND housing plus maintenance is provided. The actual cash distributed is a monthly stipend based on number of family members and the children's ages. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The term "collectivist", if not entirely invented by, was certainly coopted and used extensively by Ayn Rand and her followers under objectivism in a purely perjorative sense to describe the exact wrong kind of philosophy that stood in opposition to her particular brand of strict intellectual individualism. To understand how the term is mostly used, one must become familiar with (not necessarily ascribe to, but merely become familiar with) her philosophy, if only because when you hear the term, it is most often used in the way she meant it. --Jayron32 01:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

In 1984, Goldstein's Book is titled "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism", and I don't think Orwell had too much in common with Ayn Rand... AnonMoos (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I think he had quite a lot in common with her. Not in details of policy prescription, no, not with Orwell being a self-proclaimed socialist. But both were uncompromising liberals in the broadest sense of the word.

That said, I don't agree with Jayron; "collectivism" is the standard antonym of "individualism" (the only other widely recognized choice, I think, would be "communitariansim"), and is not specific to Randian theory. --Trovatore (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Then what would monarchism be called? A singular person instead of an abstract group is lifted up higher, no? — Melab±1 ☎ 11:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what kind of monarch you're talking about. A symbolic monarch like the QofE is fairly irrelevant to either individualism or collectivism, except of course symbolically. Most more substantive monarchical traditions still consider the monarch to be the representative of the people in some sense, at the head of the people and perhaps not answerable to them, but still there for their benefit and not his own. So I'd still call that a form of collectivism.

If you have a dictator who rules by personal fiat and purely for his own ends, then I can see your point, that's not really about the collective. But how does he stay in power? I don't know of any example of such a dictator without a power base in a reasonably large group, though certainly it needn't be the whole society. --Trovatore (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The leader could easily be ruling for his or her own ends while appeasing some other interests to remain in power. They could see the people below them as things to organize or they might want organize them to make something "great". Again, the word "collectivism" seems kind of dodgy to me. — Melab±1 ☎ 05:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the dictator's true goals, he sells it to his constituency as being about them as a collective. So it's at least purported collectivism.

Look, you've been asking about the word, but the word is not in any way "dodgy"; it's as clear as any other words in its general category. Is your real point about the argument? The argument you've probably been reading is that the two major collectivist systems of the 20th century, fascism and communism, are more alike than different, and that liberal capitalism stands in opposition to both, not for opposite reasons, but for the same reason. That's an assertion I personally agree with, but you're certainly entitled to criticize it if you like. But then take on the argument directly, not a word. --Trovatore (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It is quite possible that the "classical liberal/libertarian" tracts mentioned by Melab are not using the word collectivism in the wider sense of "the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it", but rather in the more narrow sense of "the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state, as a political principle or system". [3] Gabbe (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

To User:Trovatore's point just above - perhaps I'm naive (or disingenuous), but this "wider sense" "giving a group priority over each individual..." without an economic component, is characteristic of fascism. So I'm with User:Gabbe on the narrower sense. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Fascism is a form of collectivism, of course. --Trovatore (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it more like some kind of militarism where people need to disciplined or somerhing like that? — Melab±1 ☎ 05:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I've seen one person make a distinction between corporatism and collectivism. — Melab±1 ☎ 11:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

See also Bureaucratic collectivism... -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Are cultures with a very stick together attitude "collectivist"? — Melab±1 ☎ 05:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Concepts like this have many senses, and have to be defined in the context they are being used in. A cancer can be aggressive and an investment strategy can be aggressive and a puppy can be aggressive all in different ways. If, say, a theoretical libertarian writer wants to use the word, it is up to her to define it for her audience. She might define states as collectivist if they ascribe authority to some group, racial, religious, class, etc., over the individual. An educational program might be collectivist if it is based on group projects, scoring as groups, and scoring by groups, rather than individual action and grading. You will find collectivist will contrast with individualist. But the exact meaning is going to depend on the context. μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Expanding on Medeis' answer: After an author starts using terms, scholars and politically active intellectuals start to take her terms apart. They find the inherent contradictions in a contributor's terms. They note that the contributor failed to read any of the antecedent literature, or read it with major and fundamental failings. They note the intellectual contribution's lack of relevance to the major scholarly and intellectual discourses of the day, and so the incomprehensibility of the contribution. They question whether the contribution has any basis in empirical reality, and whether this basis is valid according to a field specific discipline of reading evidence from external reality. Finally, they largely ignore all these elements if the contributor is a French continental who is "sexy" with journals with un/ne(cess)ary punctuation, give them a free ride on the absence of empirical finding, valid interpretation, theoretical cogence, as long as it is relevant to a previous literature gestured at through parsimonious citation. The uses I've seen of "collectivist" are vacuous, and ignore a basic engagement with Enlightenment social contract work, or ideas following in the 1970s or 1980s on the ability of subjects to be governed as relationships that really exist as slippery things, rather than ideal negations of each other. OTOH, I've seen excellent libertarian work on the left and right that deals with the world as it is, and the potential spaces for subjects becoming no longer subject to sovereignty. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of loyalism and republicanism in British Isles & North America

Is there anywhere I can find a comparison of Irish Unionists with Canadian Loyalists, vis a vis Irish Republicans and American Patriots? Or, is there a written comparison of Cromwellianism in England with the American Revolution, the British Empire a spawn of the Stewarts and the American Republic a spawn of Cromwell? Has anybody done a study of Franco-Scottish political relations in Canada (New France and Nova Scotia) stemming from the Auld Alliance, and Jacobitism in the context of the Seven Years' War? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.133.231 (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The OP seems to have his timelines crossed. The Irish did not arrive in Canada in significant mumbers until the early to mid 19th century, well after U.S. Independence; indeed, the population of Canada was still largely French before the American Revolution, in spite of the British conquest in 1763. Large movements of English colonists began with the United Empire Loyalists post-Revolution. Many of the first Irish to arrive, who settled in present-day Quebec, became absorbed by the local French population because the two groups shared a religion and opposition to the British. As for the Scots, important Scottish immigration to Nova Scotia took place after the mass deportation of the (French-speaking) Acadian population from the area; The two populations had little interaction and, in any case historical affinities between France and Scotland would have little weight compared to the Acadians' sentiment that the (British and Scottish) settlers had dispossessed them of their land. --Xuxl (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Both Irish and French troops fought in the 1745 Rebellion (against the Hanoverian government forces). Note that the Jacobites were mainly supported by Catholics (or at least High Church Anglicans); the Catholic leaning Stuarts having been deposed in the Glorious Revolution, whereas the Hanoverians were installed to prevent a Catholic succession. In Ireland, the Jacobites were opposed by the Williamites at the Siege of Derry; the present day Ulster Loyalists strongly associate themselves with the Williamists. So in a British context, the House of Stewart and the Loyalists were in direct opposition to each other.

However, at least some of the Founding Fathers of the United States were descendants of those who had supported the Puritan Cromwell and had fled to America after his regime collapsed, so you may have a point on that, albeit maybe a little tenuous. Alansplodge (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

While that may be true of some New England Founding Fathers, it is not the same in the South. See English overseas possessions in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms for a discussion of Maryland and Virginia. Rmhermen (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought afterwards that I might have been making a sweeping statement. Thanks for clarifying. Alansplodge (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There was a British caricature entitled "The Yankie Doodles Intrenchments Near Boston 1776" which shows a somewhat puritanically-dressed revolutionary saying "Tis Old Olivers Cause: No Monarchy nor Laws". However, I'm not sure whether too many people made such an association at the time... AnonMoos (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

My question was whether there has been a published political analysis comparing and contrasting the trends and forms of government between the British homeland and the British colonies. For instance, Ireland and Northern Ireland are both Irish, just divided by their form of government and religious affiliation. Ireland is Catholic and Republican, Northern Ireland Anglo-Presbyterian and Monarchist. America is Puritan and Republican, while Canada is Anglo-Catholic and Monarchist. This distinction can even be applied to the similarities and differences of Hawaii as part of America (Republican) and Australia & New Zealand (Monarchist) in the South Seas. I don't expect anybody to have written anything about that though--the colonial legacy of Captain Cook's discoveries, and the interaction between America with the Commonwealth, is a little too obscure for editorial punditry.

Other than religious and political differences, there isn't anything different between the two Irelands and the two Americas, or between Hawaii and the other Antipodean colonies. Patrick Henry compared George III with Charles I, and he with Caesar. I was not asking for the historical settlement of Canada, but it is true that the Scots have a bigger presence there, and not only Cape Breton but Montreal. The Irish went to Newfoundland. There isn't really any distinctly Scottish presence in America by comparison--most of the Presidents were English, for instance, aside from Monroe, Polk, and maybe Buchanan (via Ulster), or Arthur (again, via Ulster). Most Scots in America are Orangist and Presbyterian, being pro-English, assimilating into the English population. I could not see Jacobitism being at all sympathetic to the Americans, who described themselves as Whigs opposed to Catholic and Anglican absolutism. The Canadians, of course, were the Tories on the other side of the aisle. The English Whigs in America opposed pacifying the French, who just so happened to live alongside the Tory Scots.

I was looking for some published materials debating these points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.133.231 (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Society Islands

Did the Society Islands use to referred to only the Leeward Islands (Society Islands) while the Windward Islands (Society Islands) were called the Georgian Islands? Please don't cite Wikipedia articles I have read the related ones. Old maps like this one seem to depict the islands as two seperate groups as I have suggested. When and why did Georgrian Islands become called the Society Islands too?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I found; New Zealand Electronic Text Collection - The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 64 (p. 96) "The names of the various groups are somewhat confusing; in many instances I have given those by which they are most popularly known. It is difficult to name correctly the two groups, generally called the Society Islands. Captain Wallis, I believe, named them the Georgian Islands, in honour of George III. Cook called them the Society Islands, in honour of the Royal Society. Ellis calls the Eastern Group (Tahiti) the Georgian Islands, and the Western Group, the Society Islands. I think that Tahiti should be called the Society Islands, as it was there that Cook made his observations." This seems to date from the 1870s, but I can't pin it down exactly.

The Daily Alta, California, of 3 June 1880 says; "The term Society Islands, comprehends the Tahiti or Georgian Islands, the latter being under French Protectorate, with an area of 463 square miles, and a population of about 14,000, including several hundred soldiers, and about 700 foreign residents. The Society Inlands proper are independent, having an area of 213 square miles, and a population of about 4000." Alansplodge (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I found a similar lack of consistent nomenclature looking at the historical maps of the Pacific collected here (which start from before Europeans reached the islands). Obviously there is varying level of detail, but here’s what I see:

• Most maps from the beginning label the entire group (both Windward and Leeward) “Society Islands”.
• The first mention of “Georgian Islands” in the collection is 1832 (PE Hamm) and it’s applied to the Windward group only (the Leeward group is unnamed).
• The first map to name the Windward and Leeward groups differently is in 1844 (RC Smith), where the Windward group are called “Georgian Islands” and the Leeward group “Society Islands”. For the next hundred years, a few maps repeat this, but most continue to use “Society Islands” for both groups, including detailed maps of that region specifically.
• (from 1873, a few label the Leeward group “Society Islands” while grouping the Windward islands under The Marquesas.)
• The label “Leeward Islands” first appears in Adolf Stieler’s 1891 map. Both groups are still together called “Society Islands” and there is no separate label for the Windward group. The first map in the collection with both “Windward Group” and “Leeward Group” is Matthew Northrup’s 1902 “Islands of the Pacific Ocean.”[4]

The collection goes up to 1931. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone on the Misc desk mentioned Google NGram viewer. Here is the interesting result for "Society Islands" versus "Georgian Islands"; no Georgian results after about 1900. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Biography of Prince Al Waleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Bin Saud

The wikipedia page mentions the Prince's birth year as 1955 and claims that he was a finance minister in the early 1960s. Is this true?? Can the same be verified and corrected if the same is not true?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.95.214.13 (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It was his father, Prince Talal, who was finance minister. I have amended the article, with a citation. Thank you for spotting this error - Karenjc 08:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Most powerful governor in the U.S.

Which state governor in the US has the strongest position? I mean the position within the state government and accross the USA itsself. The most influencal within the USA is likely the Governor of California or New York, because those states are very populous. But within the state government?--84.160.170.227 (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

According to Thad Beyle, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, it's the Governor of Massachusetts[5]. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

See [6] for the 2010 ranking of institutional powers. Massachusetts is still at top. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you mean in what US-state the power is more concentrated on the governor, right? OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Le Figaro

Is there a place where to consult old editions of Le Figaro online (at least the front page)? I expecially need the ones from the year 1945 to 1949. --151.41.140.58 (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Le Figaro is only available online from 1826 to 1840, 1854 to 1942 [7] and then from 1996 forward [8] [9]. According to this article, the break is due to copyright issues.

You can buy issues from the 1940s for 4,99 € an issue but the sample front pages don’t let you read anything beyond the biggest headline. The only other thing I can think of is that you can get some front page images (usually of newsworthy events) by entering Le Figaro +”date” into google image search [10]. But perhaps others will have better suggestions.184.147.119.141 (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You may also try to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange, because people there may have access to original or digital copies. 2001:18E8:2:1020:E054:F577:E495:113D (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Question about Mr. Ernest E. Evans

I recently went through my Mom's papers and came across her immigration card from Italy. She came to America on the Steamship Auguotus on 7/5/30. When she arrived in the USA a man by the name Ernest E. Evans signed as Counsul of the USA. He is already part of your history but no mention is stated about this position. Is he the same person who won the medal of Honor? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsismath (talk • contribs) 13:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think he can be. The subject of our article Ernest E. Evans (and the medal recipient) was a student in the US Naval Academy in 1930. We don't seem to have an article on your Ernest Evans.184.147.119.141 (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Aha, found your Evans. See here. It says: "Evans, Ernest Edwin (b. 1891) — also known as Ernest E. Evans — Born in Rochester, Monroe County, N.Y., April 18, 1891. Stenographer; U.S. Vice Consul in Madrid, 1917-18; Tangier, 1919-21; Mexico City, 1924; Ceiba, 1926; U.S. Consul in Naples, 1929-32; Bradford, 1938. Burial location unknown." 184.147.119.141 (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Can a legal system be so perfect that you never ever convict an innocent guy?

I wonder whether any system can reach that degree of perfection. I know that legal instruments like 'in dubio pro reo', presumption of innocence, habeas corpus, Miranda's rights, access to legal counsel and so on, will reduce the amount of innocents in prisons, but isn't a residual risk always a given? OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Only in science fiction, or if you never convict anyone who pleads not guilty. Paul B (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Your second suggestion would still get innocent in prison: see false confession. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It's easy: don't convict anyone and you will really "never ever convict an innocent guy". That is a very low standard of perfection. Presumably, some failed states have such "legal systems"...

That is why a binary classifier is not often evaluated using just its specificity without sensitivity (we have one article - Sensitivity and specificity - about both). And if one wants to evaluate it using just one number, we get something like Matthews correlation coefficient, Cohen's kappa, or, at least, accuracy.

As you can see, strangely enough, in a sense it is not a question about humanities, but about mathematics (or engineering, if you wish). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, when I was asking the question I was thinking that computer programs always have flaws and that airplanes are never totally safe. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

In my capacity as an airplane, I am 100% totally safe, and so are you. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. But no, you are never 100% safe, although you can ignore the residual risk for all practical purposes. In the same way you can take for granted that you won't win in main prize in the lottery. 22:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I read 178's statement as an assertion that, since he never functions as an airplane, there is no risk stemming from his functioning as an airplane. I'm at a loss to explain what he's responding to, though. --Trovatore (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

If a person who is declared guilty can never be found innocent the condition is satisfied. In England people who are guilty but have a lot of evidence that says otherwise are pardoned rather than being found innocent therefore it has a perfect justice system. Dmcq (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't really follow what you're trying to say. The question is not whether a person who can be determined to be innocent might be found guilty. It's whether a person who really is innocent might be found guilty. --Trovatore (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

See the Law of Suspects for a historical example. A perfect system (using the very narrow definition of "perfect" in the original question) could regard the mere fact that someone has been suspected of a crime as sufficient to make him a criminal, so nobody that's in prison will be innocent, even if they didn't actually _do_ anything illegal. A similar alternative is to arrange a state's legal system so that it's impossible to live a normal life without doing _something_ illegal occasionally (driving at 31 mph in a 30 limit?), so that everyone imprisoned will be guilty of something, even if it's not the crime they were accused of. Tevildo (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The only way of ensuring that an innocent person is never falsely convicted is to know with 100 percent certainty that a given individual did or did not commit the crime. And the only way to know that for sure would be to have every person monitored 24 x 7. I think the average citizen wouldn't be too keen on that approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Even then you wouldn't be able to see into people's minds - you may know that Person X fatally injured Person Y because it's all captured on an omnipresent recording system, but you wouldn't know whether he intended to kill him, whether he believed he was acting to defend himself, whether he was insane at the time, etc. Proteus (Talk) 08:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Another problem with such a system is that it would have to be absolutely impossible for even the most skilled hacker/film director to create a fabricated recording. Tevildo (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Even then, Minority Report. μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Mysterious symbol on bottle top

Anyone able to identify this symbol? It was found in an old theatre in Brampton, Ontario, Canada (vaudeville, then film, then community theatre and touring show), by a rep of the owner, so it could be real or a prop. (It's real glass.)

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/921370_10151848407311900_1725639808_o.jpg?dl=1

-- Zanimum (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't interpret it, but I should point out that the extra GET parameter causes my browser to say "you've chosen to open..." and give a directory to save the image, which may have put some people off (there's so much reason to be hyper paranoid recently). But https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/921370_10151848407311900_1725639808_o.jpg leads to the image without such complication. Wnt (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks a bit like a Caganer to me. Doubt that's it though. Dismas|^(talk) 00:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ha, nice. Doubt that's it too. though. (Sorry, distracted typing yesterday.) -- Zanimum (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded a few more photos, and it's an album now, so no more automatic downloading issue... https://www.facebook.com/nicholasmoreau/media_set?set=a.10151848407191900.1073741828.516681899&type=1 It looks like a monk to me, someone else suggested a troll. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a miniature elf or leprechaun in the palm of a hand. I can't find any reference to such a thing, though. Looie496 (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I hadn't thought of the relationship between hand and design. That certainly a strong possibility. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Being a bottle top that is green and in the shape of an elf/fairy/leprechaun in a place that dates back to the vaudeville era makes me wonder if it possibly has something to do with absinthe. (Perhaps it was a topper for a particular brand of absinthe at the time?) -- 71.35.99.22 (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ooh, that is intriguing. That said (and sorry for not linking to a story on the theatre) the building opened in 1922, and the Toronto Star's recent article on absinthe suggested it was banned by then. It could have been an empty leftover bottle, though, or bootlegged. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Vernors has a gnome for a mascot. Any possibility that's it ? Vernors is from Detroit, which is fairly close to Brampton, Ontario (4 hour drive). StuRat (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, that's the first I've heard of the brand. I'm realizing I didn't put measurements in here, only on FB, the bottle's only about 4 inches tall, not too practical for ginger ale. Interesting idea, though. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Soda pop bottles used to be quite small, by modern standards. Also, it might have just contained the syrup, which would then be added to seltzer to make the drink, in which case that small bottle might make quite a lot. StuRat (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

So the object is going to museum committee this morning at 9 am ET, I think it'll be accepted thanks to the provenance, no matter what the usage, but your suggestions have been helpful, folks! (If anyone has any more ideas, feel free to pitch them, as if it goes into the collection, there's technically no deadline. (I work at Peel Art Gallery, Museum + Archives.) -- Zanimum (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

September 6

John Maynard Keynes

Who was the freshwater economist who (in)famously mocked John Maynard Keynes, either at a conference talk or in a published paper, by saying something along the lines of "Keynes's name is not spoken today but with a snicker"? Robert Lucas is famous for his "Lucas critique" of Keynesian macro, but I cannot remember the quote well enough to attribute it to him, or anyone else. I'm pretty sure I've got the sentiment right, though. I add that this was supposed to have taken place in the late 1970s or early 1980s, as supply-side economics really took off in the U.S. and U.K. -- Branden (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Added a title Rojomoke (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

"Freshwater economist" ? StuRat (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

See freshwater economist. Keynes was a saltwater economist.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Do any of the "quotes about Keynes" at Wikiquote fit the bill? Some are rather snarky, particularly the first, by James M. Buchanan in 1978. "Why does Camelot lie in ruins? Intellectual error of monumental proportion has been made, and not exclusively by the politicians. Error also lies squarely with the economists. The "academic scribbler" who must bear substantial responsibility is Lord Keynes... " 184.147.119.141 (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of:

"One cannot find good, under-forty economists who identify themselves or their work as `Keynesian'. Indeed, people even take offense if referred to as `Keynesians'. At research seminars, people don't take Keynesian theorizing seriously anymore; the audience starts to whisper and giggle to one another (p. 15)."

Lucas Jr, Robert E. "The death of Keynesian economics." Issues and Ideas 2 (1980). Part of this paper is viewable at google books in Lucas's Collected Papers on Monetary Economics, but not this quote. One can look forward to the same reaction to Lucas.John Z (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much, John Z. That's precisely it! Branden (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

national guidlines

I would like to know the definition of national guidelines, who produces them and what if the relationship to national policy in the UK. How can provider serfices rely on guidelines as being credible sources of information. Many Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja566jasp (talk • contribs) 12:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

National guidelines are simply guidelines that are to be applied nationally. They are produced by all sorts of institutions, governmental, industrial, religious, secular etc, so you need to clarify what guidelines you are referring to. A guideline is not the same thing as a policy.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ja566jasp -- do you mean the British Standards Institution? AnonMoos (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

In the UK, national guidelines are generally issued by the either the responsible non-departmental public body or the government department. In a health context, it could be NICE - the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence or the Department of Health. An example is the recently issued NICE guidelines on kidney health in hospital patients.[11] Other guidelines are issued directly by the Department of Health, for instance the UK physical activity guidelines.[12] I'm not really an expert, but I imagine that Government department guidelines are more likely to be driven by politicians. There doesn't seem to be a national framework, each department issues guidelines as it sees fit, as far as I can see. They aren't law, but ignoring them could prove negligence. Alansplodge (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if whoever chose the acronym "NICE" had read That Hideous Strength... AnonMoos (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Unlikely, I think. I note that the BBC are now referring to it by its full (new) title, as NIHCE should obviously be pronounced "Nicky", which might give the wrong impression (to a Cockney, at least). Tevildo (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That must be one of those rare cases where an English word has an obvious pronunciation. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Country with most sports events won at the World Championship level

Which nation has the largest number of sports events won at the World Championship level? I'm not sure whether this correlates with the all-time Olympic medal tables, thanks. 93.174.25.12 (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Greatestsportingnation.com exists just to calculate this kind of question. It puts the United States (overall) and Norway (per capita) top for 2013 so far. I didn't explore the site in depth, so you might want to to check if they are using just World Championships or additional criteria. Wikipedia only seems to have List of top international rankings by country which can be sorted to group the sports. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

September 7

Help me

Jmoore19- How do I request to split a sub article from an original article? I would like Stickball (Native American) to have its own page separate from the History of Lacrosse because stickball is the traditional version of the game and still played among many tribes. I also have some more modern day contributions to add to the article. --jmoore19 03:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Jmoore19--jmoore19 03:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmoore19 (talk • contribs)

There are a few ways you could do this. You can list it at Wikipedia:Requested articles (I've done this for you). You could be bold and do it yourself, ideally following the process at Wikipedia:Splitting. Finally, you could leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. There you're most likely to find editors with subject-area expertise who could work on this sort of thing (or alternatively Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports). You could also work on a draft in your userspace, such as User:Jmoore19/Stickball (Native American). Good luck, and let us know if we can help further. --BDD (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Name that book

I'm trying to help an acquaintance identify the author of a novel that she believes was published within the last few years. It's set in either Victorian or Regency England, and she remembers that the author researched the language of the time to ensure she (so presumably a female author) wouldn't use any anachronisms. The acquaintance thinks she read about this book on BoingBoing or Neatorama, though I haven't had any luck finding reference to such a thing on either site. --BDD (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It could be plenty of authors, but I wonder whether you're referring to Mary Robinette Kowal? This article discusses her method of avoiding Regency anachronisms for her second novel. - Karenjc 10:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That's the one! Thanks. --BDD (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

What type of fallacy is this?

One fallacy that I notice on occasion is the perfect solution fallacy, where a solution to a problem is rejected because it isn't perfect. Somewhat related to that is the acceptance of a proposed solution on the grounds that it is "better than nothing." In other words, an action is good because it is to not do nothing (e.g. police arrest one thief, then say they need not arrest any more thieves, and therefore the action of arresting one thief is equivalent to anything else beyond that, all the way to the "perfect solution"). What is the name of that fallacy? Thank you in advance. Vidtharr (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

See the perfect is the enemy of good. μηδείς (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Also see Yes Minister where this appears more than once: "...the Politicians' Syllogism: Step One: We must do something. Step Two: This is something. Step Three: Therefore we must do this. Logically, this akin to other equally famous syllogisms, such as: Step One: All dogs have four legs. Step Two: My cat has four legs. Step Three: Therefore my dog is a cat. The Politicians' Syllogism has been responsible for many of the disasters that befell the United Kingdom in the twentieth century, including the Munich Agreement and the Suez Adventure." (Yes Prime Minister II, pp. 130-1). One could comment that certain of today's politicians should heed this advice, but that might be interpreted as soapboxing.TrohannyEoin (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The second fallacy in that extract is undistributed middle, incidentally, but it doesn't really cover the OP's example. Tevildo (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Broadly related is the aphorism "To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail", which probably has a formal name if I could but think of it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Law of the instrument, per Abraham Maslow. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

September 8

Poetical testament

I stubbed this entry for the DYK of Testament mój. The phrase appears to be used in English, but perhaps there's a better one? I cannot find any good sources to expand this tiny stub through my searchers for this term (Polish ones, which I know do define it this genra, known in Polish language as testament poetycki, are rarely previewable on Google due to copyright outside of tiny snippets). Would be nice to turn Template:Did you know nominations/Testament mój into a double DYK, if somebody could help find better sources (or tell me a better name for this genra in English). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Causing death maliciously and legally?

In the TV series Dexter, in season 7, Dexter lures a mob boss to a bar of a rivaling gang, where the boss finds himself in a shoot-out, trying to save his own life. Had he died as a result, would Dexter be legally responsible? The mob boss stalked him there of his own will, so it seems he didn't technically brake any law. Thanks, 84.109.248.221 (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

In Florida, definitely. See Ryan Holle for a real-life example of a murder conviction based on a far more tenuous connection with the death. See also the general murder article. Tevildo (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

They would have to prove it, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The Ryan Holle Case is not strange, he supposedly knowingly lent the getaway vehicle in a robbery gone bad. That's run-of-the-mill felony murder. Felony murder wouldn't apply in Dexter's case unless he was involved in some crime in cooperation with the shooter which led to the boss's death. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The key in the Dexter case might be whether anyone knew what he was up to, i.e. if he told anyone in advance - or if he came up with this in his own head and kept it there. If the latter, then he shouldn't be legally responsible, even if he is morally responsible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You are suggesting conspiracy, Bugs? I don't watch the show, so speculating as to what's going on is a little difficult from my end. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen the show, nor even heard of it until the OP's question. I'm just saying, given the OP's scenario, how Dexter might or might not be legally culpable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

A good DA may be able to cobble together a case of reckless endangerment or maybe depraved indifference. Whether a jury would convict...that's a whole different question.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 20:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Those are civil law, not necessarily criminal standards, and they apply when there is some duty of care. Unless Dexter were the owner of the property or he was the boss's physician or acting as some sort of licensed agent, as opposed to a bystander, there would be no case. μηδείς (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Those are most definitely criminal law terms and are defined as such by statute in most jurisdictions (see, for one quick example, here) and "duty of care" can be a consideration, but is not a required element. But, again, that's why I say a case could be cobbled together, didn't say it would be a good case...but in states with Grand Jury indictments, who knows what would fly.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 20:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

So your point is there is such a thing as criminal negligence? μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't strike me as a case of negligence. From the description, it sounds like Dexter intended for the mob boss to find himself in a dangerous situation. I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that would qualify as malice aforethought and first-degree murder, with no need to invoke "wanton indifference" or felony murder (not sure what the predicate felony would be in any case).

On the other hand the Holle case is truly shocking. If the felony-murder rule leads to that result, it's a good argument for changing it somehow. --Trovatore (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The OP and/or someone familiar with the show and that episode, needs to inform us whether anyone besides Dexter and the TV audience for this fictional presentation knew what Dexter was up to, or could somehow find out what Dexter was up to. If not, I don't see how he could be charged with anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The question was whether he was legally responsible, not whether he could get caught. --Trovatore (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Dexter knew that the mob boss will try to stalk him and searched online for a bar of the rivaling gang, in hope that the boss would get killed (he survived, but let's assume he hadn't). However, the police in the series has no way to prove any malice aforethought (although the audience knows there was). 84.109.248.221 (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Malice aforethought is the difference between first and second degree murder, not second-degree murder and felony homicide per se. If Dexter lured the guy into danger without either committing some crime in doing so or some crime in causing the danger he has no criminal culpability I can think of. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's true, Medeis. If you lure someone into danger with the intent that he be injured, as I say I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that is in itself a crime, and if he dies it's probably murder one, with the malice aforethought being there directly and not having to be imputed to anything (so the felony-murder rule in particular is irrelevant). --Trovatore (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

But with no evidence, how would you prove it in court? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Completely separate question, irrelevant. --Trovatore (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If you can't be charged with a crime, how can you be considered criminally responsible? Like if the speed limit is 70 and I hit an open stretch and push the speed up to 95, and then slow back down, have I committed a traffic violation? Technically, yes. But unless someone caught me, legally speaking it didn't happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The OP asked if he was "legally responsible". Maybe he was, in some theoretical way. But if no one else knew what he was up to, and if no one else could know (no comments to others about his plan, no record of such a plan), then as a practical matter, he can't be charged - unless he decides to confess. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If evolution doesn't exist ...

Moved from the Moved to the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science

... and Adam and Eve are the origin of everything: how do races exist? Shouldn't we be all the same? OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That question is more appropriate for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, since there is obviously no scientific answer to a question that involves Adam and Eve. Surtsicna (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

From a scientific (evolutionary) point of view, there is some evidence that we are all descended from an "Adam" and an "Eve" (but the problem is that they didn't live at the same time). See Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam. It takes many, many thousands of years of separate development without interbreeding for people with common ancestors to accumulate sufficient random genetic differences to be regarded as different "races" (if that concept has any scientific validity), but if you don't believe in evolution, I suppose you can claim that the genetic differences were not random, so separation of races occurred much more rapidly (not in 6000 years, though). There are many different viewpoints on this topic, so please don't take my observations as the start of an argument or long discussion. I expect that you've read more of our article on Intelligent design than I have. Dbfirs 16:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If the OP is asking about the biblical Adam and Eve, there's an "explanation" in Genesis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, how does the bible explain the existence of different races? OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The story of the Tower of Babel explains it. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It explain how humanity got divided in nations, but, if you don't believe in evolution, how does it come that people look different? OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's an article about race from Answers in Genesis, a creationist organization: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/are-there-different-races. Surprising to me that they take the view that mainstream scholars take: the concept of race is not scientifically well-defined and the genetic differences between races are so small as to be meaningless in any moral sense. Lucky for them, downplaying the differences between races makes it seem more plausible that they could've developed over a period of only a few thousand years. (Or all at once in a miracle after the tower of babel.) Staecker (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger, but look at some interpretations of the Mark of Cain. Mingmingla (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Also see the story of Noah and the flood. After the flood, Noah's sons go off and settle in different parts of the world... the implication is that each of the various races are descended from a different son. Blueboar (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah! And how do they explain that descendants of different sons look so different? Did they evolved to adapt to a new environment, or did god send them exotic looking wifes?OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Is that a serious, or an unserious challenge to what you imply is nonsense? μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a challenge. I was just asking for clarification. Having three sons and each looking so different, implies that the mothers would look different. The bible is full of inconsistencies, so I won't be surprised if there is no further explanation about this.OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• According to the Bible, the three races of Africa, Asia and Europe originated from the three sons of Noah, Ham, Shem, and Japheth. These would be the Blacks, the Semites, and the Non-Semite Whites. This classification survived into the Enlightenment. It gives rise to the Afroasiatic language family's traditional name, Hamito-Semitic which (invalidly) grouped white speakers under Semitic and black under Hamitic. Of course there are other stories like the mark of Cain and more Greco-Roman influenced classifications where the blacks are the Nubians and central Asian people whom we might call Mongoloid are broadly termed the Scythians. Before Columbus, focus seems to have been on "nations" like the Blemmyes which evolved in myth to Blemmyes (legendary creatures). Race in the modern sense became the matter of innocent natural historical observation, but led to theories of supremacy that were blended with justifications for slavery and colonization. These developments are quite remote from the original biblical notions. See also, Japhetic. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have published information at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989257 and http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102006325?q=microevolution&p=par.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Wavelength, the Amish, is posting again links to the Mormons. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there some law against being Amish or Mormon? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope, but spam is certainly not welcome everywhere. Sometimes Wavelength is pushy, not being always on topic. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

He's not being pushy. He's providing references to a certain point of view, and giving a clear indication as to the source of the point of view, and he's keeping it low key and certainly not being argumentative or forceful. --Jayron32 01:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• To take this from a different angle, creationists generally don't say that evolution doesn't exist at all -- the ability to breed altered varieties of dogs or plants is undeniable. What they say is that evolution is incapable of creating a new species. I believe they would consider different races of people to be on the same level as different breeds of dogs. Looie496 (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

They are on the same level, scientifically, aren't they? ( ... except that there is probably less difference between races than between breeds, and breeds have taken less than 35,000 years to diverge -- some only a hundred years!) Dbfirs 08:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but Looie still has a point. Scientifically the mechanism might be the same (mutation and selection) in both cases (create different breeds or different species). However, creationists are not a part of science nor they seem to react to it (it was wrong once, it could be wrong again; god wants you to think this way; accept what's mysterious; whatever). Evolution is restricted for the creationists, so there is nothing to explain regarding my question. OsmanRF34 (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I read your question as why did dogs change rapidly but humans not so much in the last period X. On the one hand, as a non-expert, I would think Humans are relatively well adapted for living in most places, so one would expect only minor evolutionary changes over time and also humans are rarely geographically fragmented since humans have always travelled far and wide. For example, the vikings in constantinople. On the other hand I don't consider it that surprising that Dogs changed quite rapidly. To contrast with Humans, dogs had an intelligent designer: Us to pick for specific purposes and to remove obstacles like scarcity of food or the disadvantage of certain variations and to also artificially separate the different breeds from interbreeding. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

For dogs, see Origin of the domestic dog#Neoteny in the rapid evolution of diverse dog breeds. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Is North Korea so poor and under-developed because of communism?

^Topic. ScienceApe (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That depends on how you define communism. But it is poor because it is a dictatorially run centrally controlled economy, and it is poorer than it was before the current "communist" rule, and poorer than it would have been with the same rule as the South. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate". AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Or speculation or alternative history. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

No, there has never been a communist country.
211.30.157.65 (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a pretty textbook case of a controlled experiment. What, besides "communist" (Kim) rule, explains the difference? μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The difference between what and what? There is no 'control' here whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, you have the non-communist South and the communist North Korea. However, there are other variables, besides being communist that are also relevant to the comparison. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The 'non-communist South' isn't a 'control'. It's history (including its economic and political development) has clearly been affected by what went on in the north. There is simply no way to ascertain what 'would have happened' in an alternate history. This can only ever be speculation - and this isn't a forum for speculation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't grump at me. I agree that it's not a control, but people will use it as a kinda scientific proof about why communism doesn't work. You could also have used West/East Germany or Cuba/some prosperous Caribbean country. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Compare living standards in Cuba with Haiti and Dominican Republic, and the picture becomes more complex. There are tons of people wanting to leave those places to migrate to the US, the difference lies in that Cubans don't get deported. --Soman (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Being a dictatorship? Being completed disconnected from almost all the rest of the world? OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you ignorant of the meaning of my scare quotes around "communism" and my reference to Kim rule, Osman? Please say something actually relevant to the issue. μηδείς (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would that quotes have a random meaning that you want to attach them? Admit your mistakes Merdeis. OsmanRF34 (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The South was a dictatorship too for a fair amount of time, so being one of those isn't the determining factor. Mingmingla (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The South was authoritarian, and has evolved into a democracy. The north was and has stayed a totalitarian state. See the Kirkpatrick Doctrine. Not only is it bizarre to deny this is not a textbook political experiment, it behooves the skeptics to explain how the North's self-imposed starvation helps the trade-partner seeking south. μηδείς (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Given that this is a historical speculation on a (pathetically framed) single analytical point of causation, there will be no answer. Historiography repeatedly demonstrates plurality of causes, and the need to analyse actual historical societies in the context of multiple forms of simultaneous causation. A start in reading might be Simon Pirani, Vladimir Andrle, Sheila Fitzpatrick for their recent work on a broadly similar society, where popular and mass proletarian revolution was destroyed by a bureaucratic party run by intellectuals and bourgeois; and the Korean Institute of Military History's section on the causes of the Korean War in particular on the internal elimination of pluralist Stalinism / Maoism in the Korean party in favour of the Juche idea. So the answer is a resounding "no." to the question, amplified with a "this question is bad, and worse, wrong." Fifelfoo (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

North Korea was certainly underdeveloped as of 1945, and until the 1980s the country experienced considerable advances. Comparisons with South Korea are debatable, but an important factor to the South's economic progress is that since South Korea were such a crucial point in the Cold War the U.S. allowed a degree of protectionism of national industries (hardly a neoliberal doctrine). So, one could say that the prosperity of the south is partly explained by communist rule in the north. However, the point is that the economy of North Korea pretty much collapsed at the time of the fall of the Soviet Union. No country, regardless of the political doctrine of its leadership, would have passed untouched by such an event. --Soman (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

NK vs SK and East Germany vs West Germany are both good comparisons, but Cuba vs some other Carribean island is not, since there are many islands with completely different cultures, histories, etc., to choose from, so everyone will pick the one that demonstrates whatever they want to show. StuRat (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that Cuba and DR is pretty much comparable in terms of culture, history (similar in size, economic structure, colonial history), probably more similar than say Prussia and Bavaria. Comparing Cuba with Cayman Islands, on the other hand, would be a flawed comparison. --Soman (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

September 9

Question regarding the Tower of Babel myth

From our article:

As people migrated from the east, they settled in the land of Shinar. People there sought to make bricks and build a city and a tower with its top in the sky, to make a name for themselves, so that they not be scattered over the world. God came down to look at the city and tower, and remarked that as one people with one language, nothing that they sought would be out of their reach. God went down and confounded their speech, so that they could not understand each other, and scattered them over the face of the earth, and they stopped building the city.

Why would God do this? Surely humanity working together would be a good thing? I get that the implication is that humanity shouldn't have near-infinite power, but surely scattering them across the Earth and confounding their language made everything far, far worse? I mean, according to this myth, all wars between different nations, all division in humanity, all the pain, suffering, and agony that has struck history all emanates from God taking a glance at humanity's success and deciding that it's too much. What am I missing here? — Richard BB 08:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Independence from the Father, is not a good thing. All the man-made divisions, pain, suffering and agony, are a result of people not learning this lesson. So, people care more about their own wellbeing than each other's. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Think of it the other way around - they saw that there were people spread all over the earth, speaking different languages, and they had no idea why that was. This is the myth they came up with to explain it. (In that light, does it have to make actual sense?) This is also why God acts differently in Genesis, which is full of more archaic myths with a less nuanced God character. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that last part is the key. In Genesis, the concept of God seems quite primitive, he's just a guy who walks around and has to see things to know they happened. Not the omnipresent God that is presented later in the Bible. Thus, with such a limited God, all the people working together could be a real threat to His power. Of course, all this brings up the question of why God is presented in such totally different ways in different parts of the Bible (sometimes loving and peaceful, sometimes downright vicious). But, that's a Q for another day. StuRat (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

As my church minister used to say, "God has never changed - it's only humanity's concept of God which has changed." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I never did like the plot holiness of Genesis. Depending on the circumstances, I have to flip-flop on my view of parts of it as fact or fiction. When I'm in a scientific mood, fiction, because it is irreconcilable with our current understanding of history and other sciences. When I'm in a religious mood, then fact, because despite the incoherencies, the important parts make the rest of Scripture work. Despite this ambivalence, I choose to remain faithful, because I have ongoing positive life experiences casually related to my perseverance, which to me proves it worthwhile; and I find myself enjoying life more than before.

PS God didn't change from the Old Testament to the New Testament, He just changed His tactics. Somewhere in the New Testament, it says that He used all the punishments (like death and destruction, etc.) in the Old Testament as examples of what sinners really deserve, but because of His extended grace/mercy, He puts off until the end times. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Definitely a citation is needed for that argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, you got the right idea, bud. For questions like this, you wanna make sure go to the people you can unreservedly trust the most. You wanna go to a bunch of random strangers on the internet. I like that! 71.246.154.137 (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The reference desk is here for exactly this kind of reason. I think I can get away with a mild theological question on the Internet. It's not like I'm asking for financial advice. — Richard BB 14:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The present heading of this section (In the Tower of Babel myth in the Bible, why did God confound humanity's speech and scatter them across the Earth?) is unnecessarily long. The heading Tower of Babel: confusion and scattering is adequately brief and adequately informative. Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Shortened. — Richard BB 15:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It's been a while, but doesn't the Bible itself answer that question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Crashed airliner - airline name and logo painted out

This Thai Airways A330 just skidded off the runway in Bangkok [BBC story here] and they've already painted over the Thai Airways logo on the tail and the name on the front. I've seen British Airways doing the same thing.

Who do they think they're fooling? Why do they do it? Hayttom 11:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)

"a routine practice", apparently. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You've heard "a picture is worth a 1000 words" ? Well, a picture of plane wreckage with their logo on it is far worse publicity than 1000 words about it. Of course, these days, the news orgs could just put the logo right back on it electronically. That would only seem fair. StuRat (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

While perhaps morally just, such an action would constitute image doctoring. This practice is generally viewed extremely poorly, as noted here, and with good reason. The more honest thing to do would be to note in the photo caption that the wreckage was freshly painted over. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Tolkien and poverty

Hi friends, google-fu is failing me. JRRT Tolkien's letters often refer to worries about money and to taking on extra academic tasks (such as proctoring examinations) to earn more. Yet as I understand it, he was a university professor. Was it not a well-paying job in the 1920s-50s? Or was there another factor that caused such cash-flow worries? Thank you.184.147.119.141 (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)