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 13

Slander

Slander is a crime. If someone spreads a slander to a third party, but tells that third party to deny the slander, is the third party guilty of any crime if they refuse to reveal that a slander was made known to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.4.14 (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

In many jurisdictions, slander is a tort, not a crime. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

In most jurisdictions, the third party would have no obligation to reveal what had been said to them. Only if the so called "slander" is actually true and is about some other crime that has been committed, would the third party have an obligation to reveal what had been said...(this is not legal advice, please consult a lawyer!) There may be some jurisdictions where the law is more "totalitarian". Dbfirs 13:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Various countries have greatly differing legal systems, so the legal opinions supplied by Nelson Ricardo and Dbfirs are unlikely to apply everywhere. Common law, Civil law and Sharia law are three examples of different traditions, and a given government might have specific case law or judicial rulings. Even though the question might be a purely theoretical one, it should be noted that Wikipedia does not provide legal advice. Edison (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I stated a fact, not an opinion. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

... and I didn't intend to provide a legal opinion (I'm not a lawyer, so I've added a disclaimer to my second sentence.) I hadn't considered the possibility that the OP (possibly from Harrogate, North Yorkshire), had voluntarily submitted himself to Sharia law. Dbfirs 07:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

All the respondents so far are on the right track. The definition of what slander is, and what legal remedies there are for it, are likely to vary widely around the world. Even if we were allowed to give legal advice, there's not enough information in the OP's question to be able to give an answer, other than "talk to a lawyer". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Ricardo is correct it is usually a tort. There is, or has been the notion of criminal defamation. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

None of you have answered the crux of the question (btw, slander/libel is still actually a crime in some jurisdictions) which is "is the third party guilty of any crime if they refuse to reveal that a slander was made known", which of course begs the question, to whom are they refusing to reveal. That would be the actual question here. Shadowjams (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Under English law, there's no legal duty to report a crime (or a civil wrong, such as defamation). However, the victim of the defamation could subpoena the publishee of the slander to testify that they received it, who could then be liable for contempt of court or perjury if they failed to cooperate. Tevildo (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out just what the OP is asking. So some guy comes up to me and says, "Joe Celebrity is cheating on his wife, but don't repeat this and don't tell anybody I told you." Is that the scenario the OP is describing? Or something different? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

They're asking, if we take the words they wrote literally, "is the third party guilty of any crime if they refuse to reveal that a slander was made known to them". We don't know who the nebulous party that they're refusing to reveal to is though. If it's just some guy on the street I would assume the answer is no. If it's the government the answer becomes a lot more complicated. In what process, in what form, in what jurisdiction, etc. Shadowjams (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

How would that third party know, at the time, whether a bit of gossip was actually a slander and not the truth? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The most likely interpretation of the OP's comment is Shadowjams final point namely the OP wants to know if someone may get in legal trouble if they refuse to reveal that they were told some slander to the government in some way, e.g. the police, in court. In that case, they will obviously be made aware that they are being asked about something that is slanderous, it generally wouldn't matter whether or not they know what they were told was slanderous at the time; since the point is not whether or not they can get in trouble for hearing something slanderous, but whether they can get in trouble for hearing something slanderous and refusing to reveal that you did so when specifically asked about it at a later date. (There is the in between case of whether someone may be required to report that they heard something slanderous if they know or find out it is slanderous without being specifically asked about it but that doesn't seem to be what the OP is referring to.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Oldest spitfire pilot and 'still living'

Warrant Officer Leslie 'Tiny' Gibson DFM born 13/05/1914 now living in Tiverton Devon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcusfaye (talk • contribs) 16:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Marcus. I'm guessing that you're suggesting we should note this somewhere. But unless WO Gibson meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability for other reasons (which are not about how brave he may have been, but solely whether independent reliable published sources have written substantially about him), then becoming "the oldest surviving X" is never a sufficient notability for an article. It is possible that somewhere there is a "List of oldest YYY" articles in which he might fit, but I rather doubt it. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

You asked about your father-in-law here back in June and received some advice. I'm not sure we can add much more. If you're suggesting an article about him, a Google search suggests that there may indeed be insufficient material about Mr. Gibson published in reliable sources to meet the inclusion criteria. - Karenjc 18:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

A church that doesn't preach the gospel?

What does it mean when a Christian describes a church "that doesn't preach the gospel"? What characteristics need to be there in order to be qualified as a "church that doesn't preach the gospel"? 164.107.103.35 (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The phrasing implies that somehow they don't support the Bible, which seems kind of contradictory. Can you find an example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is Christian jargon for something. "doesn't preach the gospel" Google search. By the way, why do you assume that the phrase implies that so-and-so does not support the Bible? Could it be that the New Testament Gospel accounts of the Christian Bible are supposed to hold the gospel and a church that doesn't preach the gospel somehow lacks the gospels in their bible version? 164.107.103.35 (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a slight against whatever church they don't like; evangelicals typically describe the Catholic church that way. Hang around long enough here and you'll probably see PlasmaPhysics describe some denomination like that. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the meaning is supposed to be subjective. That is, no standard meaning. I am told that it means, from a Presbyterian Church in America perspective, that some churches do not encourage its members or parents encouraging their children to repent and be saved. Instead of being constantly reminded that they are sinful and in need of a savior, a church that does not preach the gospel would mean a church that "strays away from Christ's message" about repentance and salvation. Instead of relying on oneself, the Christian should rely on God. Thanks for trying. 164.107.103.35 (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have answered your own question, could you at least put "resolved" at the top of this? If you still have a question, could you please state it politely and clearly? IBE (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Would Unitarian Universalism qualify for the OP? --Jayron32 03:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The phrase is subjective and as such, different people mean different things when they use it. I've been hearing it more and more among conservative evangelicals in reference to "Megachurches" (and their related televangelists) where the sermons are seen as more entertainment or, at best, something akin to motivational speaking, feel-good, self-help babble no different than you'd hear on PBS (admittedly with a few, albeit rather "neutral", bible verses mentioned). A related disparaging term is The Feel Good Gospel referencing the de-emphasizing of the the results of sin and the responsibilities of the Forgiven, commonly called "watering down" the Gospel.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 07:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Generally, when Church A sees Church B as a non-gospel-preaching church, the meaning is as follows: Church A believes that the Bible is divine revelation in every sense of the term, and Church B's view of the Bible or interpretation of the Bible is substantially different to the point that Church A believes that Church B's members can't be saved (i.e. have God's favor, live spiritually with God after death, and eventually be resurrected for non-ending life with God) because some critical portion of the Bible's message is being omitted. Exceptions surely exist, but it's normally not a slight or a slur; Church A says that Church B is so badly in error from God's teachings that God will reject them — it's typically a statement that flows rather logically if you accept Church A's premises. Of course, a wide range of things might be the reason for A's argument. Perhaps they say that B is preaching a heretical view of God himself (for example, Protestants often say this about the LDS, who preach a Godhead of three different beings), or perhaps they say that B has rejected the Bible's ultimate authority, or perhaps they say that B is preaching a wrong (i.e. useless, God-angering, etc.) method of being saved (this is the primary issue when Protestants say this about Catholics), or perhaps they say that B's not preaching that people need to be saved (this is the primary issue when used against megachurches/televangelists), or perhaps they say any of tons of other things, but the specific examples I've mentioned are generally the most common. Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

September 14

Search NYTimes Best seller list by author or title

I really tried, but can't discover a way to search the NYTimes Best Sellers List(s) by author or title. For example, when was the book Random Acts of Senseless Violence, Jack Womack, or The Systems View of Life by Capra, on the list (and at what position). There should be a searchable index, but where? Thanks if you can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.208.75.76 (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It is indirect, but you can get definite results from google. Search the term:

"author name site:http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/"

at google with either the author's name or the title substituted for author name. You will get a list at google of links to pages at the NYT best seller page listing the author you chose. For example:

michael crichton site:http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/

μηδείς (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Counties in Australia

Until reading Lands administrative divisions of Australia, I had no clue that counties had ever been declared in Australia. I note that many LGAs are known as Shires; do we know why no states chose to use the term "County" for a class of LGAs? Nyttend (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

NSW uses county to refer to both a LGA for metro planning in the 40s-60s; and regularly for waterboards (different county structure though). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

So, waterboarding is alive and well in NSW, eh. I always knew it was a brutal and repressive regime up there. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

also electricity and gas boards. I hear Britain had meat marketing boards. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

And don't forget the time-honored board of education. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

WA had counties early in the the colony's history. See Lands administrative divisions of Western Australia#Counties. Hack (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I know; I'm asking why the term hasn't remained in use for governmental bodies. Nyttend (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This won't answer your question, but my father worked for the Albury City Council between 1948 and 1961, under mayor Cleaver Bunton, and I know for a fact that there was also an Albury County Council at that time. But what ever happened to it, or why or when, I cannot say. Best I can assume is that along with development, administrative restructure, new paradigms and so-called progress come changes in terminology. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

September 15

Plank length

Moved to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/ScienceOsmanRF34 (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Good parenting?

"There is a Jewish story, an ordinary Jewish joke. A father was teaching his little son to be less afraid, to have more courage, by having him jump down the stairs. He put his son on the second stair and said, "Jump, and I'll catch you," and then on the third stair and said, "Jump, and I'll catch you." And the little boy was afraid, but he trusted his father and did what he was told and jumped into his arms. The father put him on the next step, and then the next, each time telling him, "Jump, and I'll catch you." Then the boy jumped from a very high step, but this time the father stepped back, and the boy fell flat on his face. He picked himself up, bleeding and crying, and the father said to him, "That'll teach you." "

I wonder if doing that is good parenting, and as a side question, is it common among Jewish people? OsmanRF34 (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No to both. It's only a joke. StuRat (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not asking if it's literally true, but if just figuratively,isn't it a good idea to put a child in a problematic situation. OsmanRF34 (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

A predictable outcome of such a story would be that the kid would never trust his father again. Do you think that's a good parental technique? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Putting a child into a situation where they have to think about the consequences is one thing. Setting them up to fail is another. Dismas|^(talk) 05:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The example given is pretty much analogous to a parent telling their kid to stick that metal screwdriver into several benign openings, and then advising the kid to do likewise into an electric outlet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Where do you live, Osman? If you want, we can arrange to have someone waiting for you outside in the bushes. oo There is also the time honored method of teaching a kid swimming by throwing him in a body of water over his head, but swimming lessons doesn't address that. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a valid method, although people became too delicate lately for such stuff. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If your objective is to either murder your child or make the child hate you forever, then it certainly could work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

BB: the method doesn't mean to throw the child and forget about it. It's just letting him on his own. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Standing aside and letting the kid practically kill himself when he jumps down the stairs is not "letting him on his own". In fact, it's probably a criminal act. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure this is really a Jewish joke? It doesn't portray Jews in a very good light. It seems like more an anti-Semitic joke about Jews. Herzlicheboy (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it sounds more like a "redneck joke". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Then the father would have said "that'll larn ya." μηδείς (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

child abuse videos

I'm doing a research project on child abuse. In early 1989, a weekday morning program showed this video. In it, a woman is trying to comfort a fussy baby. A moment later, the still-fussy baby is sitting in a high chair. The woman is trying to feed him/her. A couple minutes later, she slaps the child across the face yelling, "Now stop it!!" A moment later, she backhands the still-fussy baby on the face. She then gags him/her with a napkin, and slaps the child across the face a second time yelling the same thing. That video was taken by a hidden nanny-cam. In early 1991, an evening news program showed a video. In it, a woman is slamming a fussy baby onto a kitchen counter. She then strikes him/her on the head a few times with a wooden spoon. She then grabs the child and throws him/her to the kitchen floor yelling, "Shut up!!" That video was also taken by hidden nanny-cam. I can't seem to find those videos on YouTube. What has become of the abusers? What are those babies doing nowadays? Can anyone help, please? Thank you.142.255.103.121 (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

How can you be so sure about the year? That's 20 years ago. OsmanRF34 (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I found one of them. [1] explains all details. OsmanRF34 (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

A textbook of Jewish rhetorics?

A textbook of the subject that deals with Greetings, Blessings, ways of ending a conversation (Both Hebrew and English are fine), Typical discourse analyzing, etc. any recommendations? Thanks. Ben-Natan (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

For this to produce meaningful recommendations, you'd have to clarify: are you referring to communications between Jews in Orthodox or Haredi communities, or Jewish individuals regardless of religious observance? The great majority of Jews today speak the vernacular of the countries where they live and observe the local customs. Jews of Ashkenazic descent in the Diaspora, even if secular and not conversant in Yiddish, might have adopted daily and holiday greetings in that language into the second and third generations after emigration from the host country (e.g. Americans of Eastern European descent). Similarly the use of Ladino among Jews of the Spanish expulsion (e.g. Netherlands, Balkans), Judeo-Persian among Jews from the Middle East, and the Judeo-Arabic languages for Jews from North Africa. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Both !. please give me what you have to offer :) Regards, Ben-Natan (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Preliminary web search has been inconclusive, and offhand I know of no published guide treating this topic. The next avenue of inquiry leads to the actual reference desk of a Jewish university's library, one that has a department of ethnolinguistics. In the oral exchange between two individuals, relevant factors include what each might know about the other's level of observance and familiarity with the source language elements, in usage ranging from the jocular to pious. E.g. such greetings would be wasted on my secular/assimilated brothers in the Pacific Northwest; in the Western Galilee I replied "thank you" to the Israeli Arab bank clerk who wished (the secularly dressed) me a happy New Year, but I wouldn't have known whether to have to have closed my conversation with her the previous month with "Ramadan kareem" or "Eid mubaraq," since she dresses Western and wears no identifying jewelry indicating her religion. By contrast, for an in-group Jewish use of Yiddish and Hebrew in English, see Yeshivish. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Scotland post Independence Referendum 2014

In the (unlikely) event that Scotland does vote YES for independence from the remainder of the current UK in September 2014, would the Scottish Electorate still have voting rights in the Westminster General Election in 2015, given that Scottish Independence would not actually take Constitutional effect for 2 years after the Referendum? And if the answer to that question is YES, how could Scottish MP's continue to represent their Scottish Constituencies for the normal 5 year Westminster Term of Parliament when the last 3 years of that term would see Scotland outside the remainder of the UK? 80.6.13.178 (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this may answer most of your questions. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Grandiose, very helpful article, but as a British Englishman (Yorkshire actually) who has lived in Scotland for 38 years, married into a Scottish family, with Scottish born children, one of whom has warned me that I will be an immigrant after a Yes vote, I just might have to take myself (and her inheritance as well), back to England. 80.6.13.178 (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Your child is either confused or teasing you (or both). There is no legal concept of "Scottish citizenship" at the moment - all that we have to go on is residency, which is why my grandmother (born in pre-partition Ireland), my mother (born in Northern Ireland) and my father (born in England) will all be able to vote in the referendum (as will you!), but despite being born in Edinburgh, I won't. It is completely inconceivable to me that any arrangements for independence will rely on birthplace alone; apart from all the obvious reasons it's a good idea, not every prominent SNP politician was born in Scotland, which neatly blocks the chance of anyone suggesting it for political grandstanding. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that citizens of the Irish Republic (resident in the UK) are still able to vote in UK general elections. Alansplodge (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Buying a barrel of oil

A barrel of oil currently costs about $108. If I had a hundred and eight dollars, could I actually buy a literal barrel of oil from an oil retailer, or is this more a theoretical concept used to measure the price of oil? Horatio Snickers (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a decidedly theoretical concept. This organization can sell you 24cc of crude oil for $14.95 (which works out at approximately $100,000 per barrel), and this one can sell you 2 gallons for $115 (which would work out at $805 per barrel, but they don't let you order more than 2 gallons), but I don't think there's anywhere that you can buy one barrel (42 gallons). [No representations are made as to the reliability of either of those websites, if that needs saying]. On the other hand, if one were to write to one's nearest oil refinery, one _might_ be able to arrange something with a medium-level person in their accounts department. Or, indeed, one could ply a lower-level person in their Goods Inwards (or whatever the appropriate term is for an oil refinery) department with alcohol and cash, but that would be stealing rather than buying. Tevildo (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Oil can be bought on a commidity market. You probably can't just get one, it is likely sold in lots of some number of barrels. If you buy an option for (example), January delivery of X number of barrels, then the seller would be obligated to deliver it to you. There are also companies that deliver Heating oil. RudolfRed (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

An options contract is not going to be that loose. It will specify where the oil could or would be delivered and stipulate handling and transfer fees if it is physically taken possession of. Those will likely have minimums. Look at Hillary Clinton's famous single cattle trade. It was in bulk, and she didn't have them delivered to the Rose Law Firm. μηδείς (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Linking to it: Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy for those who don't know what it's all about. Was it brains, luck or fraud? It's up to you to decide. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I kind of suspect you could possibly buy one barrel if you had some contacts for it. It would undoubtedly cost you more than the spot price, but not massively more. I don't know where you'd start looking though. Perhaps a small scale producer. I imagine certain disciplines, hollywood for instance, might have access to something like this. Shadowjams (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

They are called the teamsters, Shadowjams. Thanks for the link, Osman. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Having a family member who was a Teamster, I'm pretty sure that's not what they are. But thanks for the attempt at help Medeis. Shadowjams (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so I see the longshoremen have their own union. Always assumed they were teamsters. I used to be a teamster myself for a while. Always found that funny. μηδείς (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a teamstrice? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

There were plenty of teamstrices, if you want to go there, but it was not an inside joke at that workplace. There are plenty of people whose job leads them to be members of the teamsters union in the US who themselves don't actually teamst. (PS, please help with the Karen Carpenter question.) μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I saw it, but I have no credentials to answer it. Sorry. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Coming a bit late to this, but what can one do with a barrel of crude oil? Keep it in the hope that the price rises? --Hors-la-loi (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Muslims and Arabs' Hatred of Jews

This might be a stupid question, but I've never really had much exposure to Islamic cultures or have studied them in school. However, the I get the impression that Muslims and Arabian peoples are unabashedly anti-Semitic. What has caused them to have such an ill-regard for the Jews? And more importantly, does the Islamic version of anti-Semitism differ from common Western versions of anti-Semitism? I know quite a bit about historical European anti-Semitism and was wondering if Islamic anti-Semitism is different. Is their Jew hatred based on historical, racial, cultural, linguistic or religious factors? If you could tell me some reliable works on the subject where I could read more about it. Thanks Herzlicheboy (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Just in case this editor, who writes about Syrian films, is serious, here's a start: Islam and antisemitism. Bielle (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

In past centuries, many Muslims had a kind of low-level generalized contempt for Jews as an un-military people who obstinately clung to an obviously "superseded" and obsolete religion. However, there usually wasn't too much that could be called "hatred" or specific antisemitism, until it started being imported from Europe, as seen in the Damascus Affair etc. In the pre-WW2 period, Fascist and even Nazi attitudes towards Jews also began to have influence on some in the middle east... AnonMoos (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

From the top of my mind, Jews would be dhimmis in a Muslim state, that is, better than a kaffir but worse than a Muslim. There is also the question of Zionism taking over a territory with a Muslim majority and then defeating several Arab armies. Anti-Semitism was earlier than Zionism and certainly earlier than Israel, but the wars have not certainly helped.

On the independence of Israel, Oh Jerusalem is quite enjoyable, but surely others could recommend better works.

I would discard linguistical factors. Jews in Arabic and Islamic countries would speak the local majority language even if keeping a Jewish dialect (Judeo-Arabic and Judeo-Persian).

For a connection between European and Arab anti-Semitisms, see the Great Mufti of Jerusalem in the1940s.

You don't mention economic factors.

--Error (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

For your redlinks, you may want Israeli Independence and O Jerusalem!.. -- ToE 23:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks --Error (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Arabs are Semitic as well. So Arabs aren't unabashedly anti-Semitic.
Sleigh (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"Antisemitism", "anti-Semitic" etc. refers to and describes negativity concerning Jews specifically, despite any misleading etymology. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sleigh -- the claim that "Arabs can't hate Jews because they're Semites themselves" is unfortunately completely blatantly incorrect. When referring to modern peoples (as opposed to tribesmen of 1000 B.C.), the word "Semite" has no real valid meaning other than "speaker of a Semitic language", but the term "antisemitism" has always meant "Jew-hating" continuously since it was apparently originally coined by non-Jewish Jew-hater Wilhelm Marr in 1879. During the late Victorian period, "Semites"=Jews was actually one of a whole series of mock-grandiose pseudo-elevated (but really slightly condescending) terms which were used to refer to various ethnic/religious groups that were felt by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants to be somewhat alien to themselves -- such as "Celestials" used to refer to Chinese, "Romans" for Italians, "Sons of Erin" for Irish, and a number of others. During that period, the term "Jew-hating" was a little too crude and direct to be used in polite mixed genteel company, so that "antisemitism" gained acceptance as a euphemism for drawing-room use. The term "antisemitism" may be considered theoretically etymologically incorrect, but the word "homophobia" is even more theoretically etymologically incorrect, and that doesn't change its meaning.... AnonMoos (talk) 06:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The founding of the modern state of Israel, and thus demotion of Palestinians outside Israel to 2nd class citizens, is the modern problem. But, even in ancient tomes, one tribe of Jews betrayed Mohammad during the siege of Medina by the Meccans, and were all massacred or enslaved for this. StuRat (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The question has to consider that being Arab doesn't mean you are not Jewish, hatting Zionism doesn't mean hatting Jewish people, that there still are communities where Jewish people live in peace with Muslims, and some that Muslim nations such a Turkey, have a good relationship with Israel. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"Hatting" all the Jewish people would require quite an effort, as it would require millions of yarmulkas. :-) StuRat (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

OsmanRF34 -- Unfortunately, many Arab nationalists during much of the 20th century decided that Jews could not be "real" Arabs, and the only Arab country whose rulers have given consistent protection over decades to a full Jewish community (not just to a small remnant of mainly a few old people) is Morocco. And Turkey's relations with Israel started on a downward path after the AK Party attained power. AnonMoos (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

These are valid distictions not commonly observed in mass media reportage today, and the consequent casual opinions and attitudes formed in its wake (e.g. the recent Jew-on-Jew heckling of NYC mayoralty Democratic primaries' candidate Anthony Weiner for "marrying an Arab"). See also the distribution in the Arab world in recent decades of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Modern era. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

September 16

How can I work property rights for something ?

How can I work property rights for mathematical theorem ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.238.39.250 (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand all the individual words, but the sentence makes no sense. Could you restate your question, maybe provide more detail as to what you want to do? --Jayron32 11:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like he/she might be asking how to claim ownership/copyright of something, particularly a mathematical theorem. If so, the answer is that generally copyright is automatic, i.e. anything you publish is automatically protected as your 'intellectual property'. However, copyright does not apply to mathematical theorems, because they are logically derived and thus do not entail any originality on the part of the 'author'. - Lindert (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the idea that anything you publish is automatically protected as your 'intellectual property' means, more specifically, that no one can restate it using the same or virtually the same words; but they can paraphrase it -- restate it in their own words. The theorem itself can be used by anyone, e.g. as a component of the proof of their own theorem.

For algorithms as opposed to theorems, see also Karmarkar's algorithm#Patent controversy, Algorithm#Legal issues, and Software patent. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

As a trainee patent attorney, all I can say is that the answer is hugely complicated, very dependent on juisdiction, and the exact nature of the theory/algorithm in question. There's no way to give a good answer without going well beyond the ban on requests for legal advice. MChesterMC (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Pads

Menstruation products cause millions of tons of waste each year. Between tampon and pads, which is better for the environment? Also, which are more commony used? Pass a Method talk 13:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Re better for the environment: This doctoral thesis, on page 34, comnpares pads and tampons directly re environmental impact and tampons come out ahead (because they are smaller). For raw numbers, here's a source saying average tampon use is 13 per cycle. (THat doesn't mean tampons are the best choice for the environment, FYI, see my last point below.)
• Re commonly used: Here's a survey of common product use. (Note many women use more than one product.) See also the doctoral thesis page 20 for a chart of tampon versus pad use.
• You didn't mention, but for women worried about waste the increasingly common choice is a menstrual cup. 184.147.120.88 (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm tempted to expand this topic to disposable nappies. (Diapers to Americans.) A massive waste problem. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Ummm, ah, that's quite the thesis topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"I once went out with a woman who told me she liked to be pampered on a date, then for some reason she slapped me when I showed up with a box of diapers." :-) StuRat (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Washable cloth menstrual pads are another option sometimes used by those who are concerned about landfill waste. Our article does not have information about how common such usage is, though presumably it makes up a small percentage in developed areas of the world. Comparing the environmental impacts of similar disposable products seems like a worthwhile thesis; it's not a strange topic. 198.190.231.15 (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Mass executions of the poor

I know that as a group the wealthy have been targeted for death by certain communist regimes; however have the poor ever been executed as a group before? Also if such an event has ever happened; what were the economic ramifications? CensoredScribe (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Considering the interlinkages between class and race, the 1937 Parsley Massacre could qualify as an example. --Soman (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

They can't execute too many of the poor, or there will be nobody left to fight their wars for them and do their work for them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Well done, Bugs. Also, bear in mind that the really poor are vulnerable and will disproportionately suffer if you start a war or cause a famine. Or if they start to protest you can take reprisals. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Peterloo Massacre came to mind. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

About 10 to 15 people died in the Peterloo Massacre. Is this what you consider a mass execution of the poor as a group? Herzlicheboy (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why not, actually. It was the largest massacre of its kind in England at that time. I know by modern standards it seems almost commonplace for gun murders to kill dozens of innocent people, but in the early 19th century in England, it was a real game-changer.--TammyMoet (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Who are "they"? Your point is unclear. You could give some examples, Bugs. And what in the world are you talking about, IMJudith? Famines (which have killed most of my relatives in Europe) are not executions. Please give links or references. μηδείς (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"They" being "the wealthy", as stated by the OP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The OP said no such thing. Quote for me where he said the wealthy were doing the execution. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

D'oh! You're right. That was an inference. The conclusion still stands, though. If too many low-end workers disappear, it spells trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Say if you were in power in a country, e.g. by conquest, and you had it in for the poor of that country, you could engineer a famine by commandeering resources. Is it not the case that the already-poor die in disproportionate numbers in famines? As a general rule the already-poor die disproportionately in wars, massacres and general unrest, oppression and exploitation. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thinking back to the Irish Potato Famine, for example, it wasn't an execution, but more of negligence and plain old "not caring" about the Irish, that was the source of the English inaction on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This seems largely to have been a case of ideological contempt by the Protestant British for a distant Catholic underclass and brutal means used by Protestant landlords whose position was based on legal prejudice rather than business acumen. Hard to imagine the famine happening if it had been on the BBC nightly. Do They Know It's Christmas and all. Famines are almost always political. That's more ascribable to the political class than to businessmen. The term rich has always been ambiguous between the two, the rulers and the builders. μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I take exception with the assumption. Most so-called communist regimes have not targeted "the wealthy" for death - the Khmer Rouge may have, but then they also targeted the literate and all wearers of glasses - and they are about as communist as a group of rabid dog. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The communist regime of Stalin certainly did target the wealthy for death; at least in the Ukraine. I'm sure you have heard of Dekulakization. If not, read that short article and give it some thought. Herzlicheboy (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the Holodomor. My grandfather visited my thriving relatives in the old country with his parents as a boy just after WWI. They were almost all dead by WWII. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Our article on dekulakisation is pretty piss poor. Despite intentional fallacies, the policy in practice was targeted at the peasantry entire, as any of the works on this period would attest. So not really quite an attack on the rich. But it does raise the question of whether "attacks on the rich / poor" as such are a meaningful social studies category: reference to either of the great theoretical traditions of the social sciences, Marxism or Liberalism would indicate probably not. Medeis, despite contemporary narratives supported by states (as disgusting to history as previous narratives supported by states), the Politbureau papers we have indicate, at worst, "it wasn't an execution, but more of negligence and plain old "not caring" about the [x], that was the source of the [y] inaction on the matter." These findings obviously don't eliminate the possibility of a nationalist narrative of especial persecution; but, it would have to be significantly different than the current popularist narratives of the holodomor. I have real difficulties with the populist narrative of the Holodomor because its effect is to conceal the actual monstrosities of the 1933 famines beneath yet another layer of state interest. Also, a fuller evaluation might have to strongly involve a condemnation of famine in any economic network with rapid transportation, regardless of state intention. Outcomes, not intentionality, was nominally the requirement that post-social democratic parties ought to have been held to. Its also a reasonable construction of "responsibility to protect" discourses within liberalism on the justification of states to governance. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting sentiments. If the article on dekulakisation is not to your standards, perhaps you can try Holodomor? What you are saying furthermore is that contemporary writings on Stalin's Ukrainian agricultural policies are more reliable than modern scholarship on the issue? That is quite a stretch, no? Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Our article on Holodomor is a fucking mess, and poisoned by state discourses. I am saying that modern archival scholarship held accountable to international peer review is more reliable than state dominated populist publications of any era. Claiming that scholars publishing in the scholarly press subject to peer review are reliable, or the only basis, for making complex theoretical adjudications of central european history has unfortunately been quite a stretch for a large number of editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, ok, I agree with you. Peer reviewed published scholarly works are the most reliable on the topic. That being said, have you read this 2011 book: Bloodlands:_Europe_Between_Hitler_and_Stalin, by historian Timothy Snyder? This work furthermore posits the theory that the USSR policy of the time was to kill the better-off kulaks as an entire class. Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not respect for Basic Books' capacity to judge high quality scholarly social science, due to their previous publication decisions in my area of expertise. (This is nothing against Snyder though, and it certainly meets our standards for HISTRS's highest category of work AFAICS). The problem with drawing the claim "that the USSR policy of the time was to kill the better-off kulaks as an entire class" is that policy isn't social actuality: its claiming an intention at odds with public policy documents, and at odds with actual bureaucratic implementation. Which makes me wonder what the origin of the claim is. Its also hard to square with the public policies of the period for dispossession (as opposed to mass murder) of rich kulaks, and their incarceration in what were viewed from the equivalent policy standpoint as work reformation camps. Getting back to the social actuality, the actuality of policy was the elimination of the peasantry as a class; their forced proletarianisation in kholkoz, sovkoz and dislocation to urban proletarian pursuits or forced corvee labour in a (failed) industrial prison system. The category of "kulak" used in campaigns against the peasantry was so vacuous that it can hardly be called policy. The NEPmen so brutally sought in the field of propaganda didn't exist. I feel the Nove-Millar debate might be most helpful here. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you call up a Dolmetscher? I have no idea what you are trying to say. So you don't like Basic Books because they didn't publish your semiliterate ramblings? Try that in English, please. Thanks. Herzlicheboy (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Basic books have published a lot of right wing survey level shit in historiography. A great deal of it. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The punk rock group the Dead Kennedys had a well-known single back in 1980 called Kill_the_Poor. ""The sun beams down on a brand new day / No more welfare tax to pay / Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light / Jobless millions whisked away / At last we have more room to play / All systems go to kill the poor tonight" Herzlicheboy (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

For context's sake: that song is a satirical protest against the development of the neutron bomb, whose only practical use is the extermination of the general population of an area while leaving infrastructure intact for other people to replace them on a reduced timetable at near-full economic capacity without having to rebuild so much first. Presumably the replacement people are also largely an underclass, as there's no point in leaving infrastructure intact for elites who do not and will not run it: if the wealthy class really actually were to kill off its underclass, they'd stop being wealthy and have to work the infrastructure themselves just to survive. That's why the song never really made that much sense to me; far more likely (and therefore terrifying) is the prospect that a nation would use neutron weapons against another nation wholesale, for the purpose of immediately colonizing the victim country (they could even tout the project as one of relieving population pressure, homelessness, and a weak economy domestically, to help provide justification for such an enormity). Yes, it's a kind of fine line between killing our poor, versus killing their poor and deporting our poor to form a puppet country in the not-so-smoldering wreckage, but it's enough to make the satire miss its target IMO. ...It is pretty catchy though. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I was reading recently how the number of Black Argentinians is so low now in spite of their importance in the history of Argentine because a deliberate policy of using them as cannon fodder in wars. And you could look into the Anti-Haitianism in the Dominican Republic. --Error (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Did Hitler have any retirement plans?

Did Hitler have any plans to step down as Führer and retire peacefully? Of course this never happened since Germany was totally defeated in 1945. However, Hitler's long-term plans for Germany and Europe are well-known. Did he envision himself leading the Reich for life, or did he have any plans to step down at a certain stage? I have heard rumors that Hitler himself fancied retiring to Crimea, perhaps the vacation city of Yalta, but I've never seen anything corroborating this in historical sources. Does anyone have any information on these topics? Thanks. Herzlicheboy (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Before anyone directs me to this article: New_Order_(Nazism)#Hitler.27s_plans_for_retirement I must say that I found a problem, a major problem with the information there. Most of the section, including the alleged plans for Hitler to retire to Linz, is sourced to Albert Speer's "Inside the Third Reich" (1970), p. 139. I actually own this book so I decided to check up on that. While on pages 137-141 is discussion of the upcoming 1950 deadline for new construction in Berlin, there is absolutely no mention of Hitler's "retirement" or his planning to move to Linz in the future. This probably warrants changing the article, perhaps removal of the entire section, as it is sourced to something that doesn't support what the article says. Herzlicheboy (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the entire book ? It's possible they either had the page number wrong or there are multiple editions, with different page numbering. StuRat (talk) 06:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Even if it was in the book it would be problematic to state it as facts, since Speers autobiography is notoriously unreliable. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I read several pages before and several pages after the cited page 139. That should satisfy any "different editions, different page numbers" issue. In any case, the editor cited the MacMillan 1970 edition, which is the edition I own as well. No mention was made concerning any of Hitler's retirement plans, but the information about the 1950 construction deadline was right on page 139. Herzlicheboy (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I looked in Google books and found this. The index specifically mentions "Retirement in Linz". That is the Apr 1, 1997 edition. (Hmm . . April fools day?). I also found on page 3 of The Hitler of History by John Lukacs mention of Hitler's intention to retire in Linz that seems to come from an independent source that predates Speer's book. See the footnote. It mentions Gertraud "Traudl" Junge who wrote her own book, Until the Final Hour: Hitler's Last Secretary. On page 83 she says he said The Berghof as his place of retirement. So we are getting different stories. I would go with The Berghof as this point, but more digging may be needed. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

September 17

Did the Germans fight back at Dresden?

Our article Bombing of Dresden in World War II mentions that the Germans had a night squadron of 10 fighters in the area of Dresden during the attack, as well as tangential references to possible dogfights over the city. But there are no references to planes being shot down on either side. So my question is, did the Germans fight back at Dresden? Did the Allies encounter either enemy fighters or anti-aircraft fire? Were any planes shot down or damaged on either side? Thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There was almost always anti-aircraft fire (though whether it was effective in any particular case is another question). AnonMoos (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden 1945 edited by Paul Addison, Jeremy A. Crang (pp. 66-68) says that by January 1945, nearly all the flak batteries at Dresden had been moved to the east to counter the Soviet offensive. Ten Me 110 night fighters were deployed against the first wave, but a second squadron of fighters were held on the ground because of "bad fighting conditions". Only 6 of 796 RAF bombers were lost, 3 of those due to being hit by bombs dropped by aircraft above them. On the following day, only one USAF bomber was shot down. I'll add this to our article when I have time. Alansplodge (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Transsexuality: do psychoanalysts get referral bonuses?

When someone goes to a psychoanalyst of some sort to be diagnosed with gender identity disorder, and is referred to a surgeon for sex reassignment surgery, does the surgeon give the psychoanalyst a kickback for sending business his way? (If so, how much?) Wnt (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Not in most developed countries. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW, are you specifically talking about the (controversial) practice of psychoanalysis? Because usually people are not referred by psychoanalysts, but by ordinary psychologists/psychiatrists. - Lindert (talk) 10:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't say for certain that they don't, but it is highly doubtful. A therapist with experience with other trans patients will know what surgeons they have used and how they felt about the entire process and results, and can make recommendations from there. They work in the patients best interest in finding a surgeon. Often trans women (and I assume trans men, but I don't have the experience there), will do a lot of research on their own into finding the right surgeon even if it means travelling, possibly even to another country. Katie R (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why this would be any different than any other gift-giving between a therapist and any doctor to whom the patient/client has been referred for whatever reason. Because this kind of compensation is seen as unprofessional and unethical (likely to create conflicts of interest) it is often also mentioned in laws or in the regulations of professional organizations. One example from the State of California Department of Consumer Affairs Laws and Regulations Relating to the Practice of Psychology 2012: "[...] accepting, or soliciting any consideration, compensation, or remuneration, whether monetary or otherwise, for the referral of clients" is defined as "unprofessional conduct", unprofessional enough to be cause for disciplinary action, such as revoking a psychologist's license to practice. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That looks like a pretty convincing source. But how typical are these restrictions? Wnt (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I didn't check individual states within the US, or federal regulations, or other nations, but my impression from reading more global studies is that this is universally (let's say in the Western academic world) frowned upon and is indeed addressed in laws and especially in by-laws or regulations of organizations as mentioned. I'm sure loopholes can be found, and I'm sure this code gets breached, both reported and unreported, but I doubt this is considered "good practice" in any professional context. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Why did you single out GID in asking this question? The practice you describe is plainly unethical on the face of it, whatever combination of specialists and conditions were involved. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, people have been discussing these issues quite a bit of late after the Chelsea Manning announcement, and a sort of underlying uncertainty with all this is why the psychiatrists/psychologists don't make more effort to persuade people to accept their physical form rather than to become clients for surgeons. I mean, it just seems hard to believe that it makes that much of a difference to someone whether they're male or female, rather than the more important issue of whether they can be male or female on their own terms. Wnt (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is it a psychiatrist's job to persuade people of anything? --Jayron32 14:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

From that side of things, you should probably be aware that only about 20% of trans women and 5% of trans men have had "the surgery", and a good portion of those who haven't don't have any plans or great desire for it. A therapist won't try to push someone towards surgery if they don't feel that they need it to be comfortable with themself. For a lot of trans women the most significant transition expense is electrolysis to remove facial hair - hormones alone won't do that. For those without insurance coverage for transition that usually means going to a trans-friendly salon and paying $50-$100 an hour for regular (weekly at first) treatment over 2-4 years. The therapist certainly won't see any kickback from that. WPATH Standards of Care isn't without its controversies, but it would be a rather large conspiracy if it were written to support surgeon-therapist kickbacks. Katie R (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't overlook the agenda behind the OP's question - namely, that all doctors are frauds and money-grubbers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I should thank Sluzzelin and Katie Ryan A for giving some good answers that help clarify the issue. My naive assumption pretty much was that trans candidates were getting taken aside and given a fairly hard sell, and indeed it does sound from these sources like the policies are strongly opposed to that. Wnt (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Do Indians love or hate the Gandhis (Indira and Rajiv)

I've seen the comments on videos related to them on YouTube and are pretty harsh. Accusing them both of corruption and of murderers. Why? Were they popular or unpopular among the Indian population? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiplimo Kenya (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

See Operation Blue Star. This made Indira Gandhi extremely unpopular among Sikhs, leading to her assassination. See assassination of Rajiv Gandhi to see why he was unpopular with another minority, the Tamils. I suspect they were a bit more popular among Hindus, but perhaps almost as unpopular amongst Muslims. StuRat (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Indira Gandhi became unpopular among some when population control measures got out of hand (the Indian government mandating that sterilization quotas had to be fulfilled); some Muslims were convinced that it was a plot to eliminate Muslims. Of course "The Emergency (India)" was going on at the same time... AnonMoos (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Racism among Europeans?

Is there racism among Europeans? I am not talking about Asian or African or North/Central/South American immigrants. I am talking about peoples whose skin color have adapted to the amount of sun exposure. The only example I can think of is the Jewish populations in different parts of Europe, who were told to live only in certain areas. Any others? 164.107.102.70 (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't quite follow your Q. Are you asking if there is discrimination based on how tan people are ? (I'd think you were talking about skin color, except that you excluded Africans.) And you can pretty much be sure that there is discrimination against people with any characteristic in common, in any part of the world, although the degree varies greatly. The historic discrimination was far worse than it is now (culminating in the Holocaust of WW2), but we still see some ugly examples, like in the breakup of Yugoslavia. StuRat (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure there is "racism" in Europe (quotes because "race" is a fuzzy concept, in particular within Europe). Here in Germany we hear about "Itaker" (Italians), "Pollacken" (Poles), "Franzmänner" (French), and probably a lot more that I have forgotten. They are all some combination of lazy, dishonest, stealing, blood-thirsty, adulterous and/or cowardly. Luckily, this kind of talk is now rare, but it is by no means gone. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The Romani people are certainly victims of "racism" right now, although skin colour doesn't have anything to do with it. --Wrongfilter (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Skin color is one of the factors. I was told by a relatively dark-skinned Spanish woman that she had an unpleasant experience in Romania because "she was a Gipsy trying to pass for a foreigner".--Error (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

See Arthur de Gobineau, Joseph Deniker, William Z. Ripley, Madison Grant. The idea that there is a "Nordic" subtype of Europeans is still popular today. Similar thinking goes all the way back to before Plato. In Plato's Menexenus, Socrates says how the Athenians are superior because they are pure Greek, but other cities are semi-barbarian. This was like a common myth associated with the Spartans (that they were purebred Dorian invaders from the North, whereas other populations had miscegenated with the indigenous populations). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

In a broad sense, there's certainly bigotry in Europe; though each country defines its classes of people to "hate" on different criteria. The criteria used in, say, the U.S. may not hold much social meaning in, say, Germany. But bigotry and social discrimination certainly exist there! --Jayron32 18:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The British have plenty of words for other nations that fall in the category of "bigoted": Wops, Dagos, Eye-Ties, Krauts, Huns... we have a long and (ig)noble history of hating other nations! --TammyMoet (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sami_people#Discrimination_against_the_Sami. The attitudes referred to in the linked paragraph are by no means gone, although they're no longer official policy. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 20:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

See limpieza de sangre, agotes, Lega Nord, Sabino Arana, Slavs as Untermenschen under Nazism. --Error

(talk) 00:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

So are you talking about racism directed against non-European peoples with fair skin? Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I was talking about white people against white people. Sometimes, white people may be against white people due to cultural or ethnic differences, thereby subjugating other peoples as "different (and often inferior) races". 164.107.102.21 (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Some people just don't like foreigners; this is usually called xenophobia. Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Trip to New World

Hello, I am doing a project where we choose one of the original American colonies and "influence others" to migrate to the colony in the 1770s (mine is on Rhode Island and Providence Plantations). I know that indentured servitude was a popular method of bringing in others to the colonies, but I was wondering, how much did a trip actually cost to come from Europe to Rhode Island? I would prefer the price range not adjusted for inflation (i.e., the cost back then). Thanks so much!! 64.229.4.44 (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Indentured servitude was actually one way of paying for the trip - if you couldn't afford it, you could sell yourself, in a way, to the captain (who could then sell you to someone else when you got to America). So, it could be "free", but you'd have to work off the debt for years or decades. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The colonies were not independent so migration was pushed from the United Kingdom and not pulled by the colony.
Sleigh (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Our article Indentured servant says, for the 18th century generally, £5 to £7 or equivalent of four to five years work. Other sources, such as this detailed description of how the indenture contract worked, have different numbers; it says terms were three to seven years with four the most typical sum, and it says in the 18th century ship captains would get about £10 or more, "nearly double the cost of passage". This eyewitness description from 1750 is also fascinating, and covers what happened with children, or if people died on the voyage. 184.147.120.88 (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

September 18

13, Duncan Street, Houndsditch

Is there a Duncan Street near Houndsditch, or was there in the late nineteenth century? Searching for <"duncan street" houndsditch> returns plenty of results for A Study in Scarlet, unsurprisingly, but nothing that discusses whether Conan Doyle made up the location entirely. I had assumed that it was a real street with a fabricated address, comparable to 221B Baker Street. Google shows me a Dunan Street at 51°32′1″N 0°6′16″W, but that's two miles away from Houndsditch at 51°30′55″N 0°4′43″W — obviously not what one would tell a cabbie in the late nineteenth century. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

And on a side note: Google Maps tells me that my drive from Duncan Street to Houndsditch involves toll roads; apparently I have to pay some sort of charge at about 51°31′9″N 0°4′28″W, even though no tollbooths are visible on Street View. Is this somehow related to London's congestion charges, or is it something else? Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

There are some fantastically detailed period maps of London online. They aren't searchable, but you can scan the Houndsditch section and get the names of nearly all the alleys. London1868.com is my fave, but for closer to the period there are also London 1878.com and, though less detailed, this one from 1886. 184.147.120.88 (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

As regards the toll, Houndsditch is within the London congestion charge zone, so Google Maps is doubtless referring to that. There are no tollbooths; it's all controlled by ANPR cameras.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha! "The name of Duncan Street was later changed to Camperdown (Street); 1881?" from The New Finding Sherlock's London by Thomas Bruce Wheeler (p.197). Camperdown Street is now in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in the E1 postal district;[2] not too far away from Houndsditch, but most people would call it Aldgate in my humble opinion. Alansplodge (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, excellent work! And you can see it as Duncan Street on London1868.com too. 184.147.120.88 (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

How predictable are divorces?

I am just wondering if it's possible to predict the likelihood of a divorce in couples or the likelihood that couples may have a marriage surviving for 25 years or more. Are there people who predict the likelihood of divorces like an actuary who deals with the financial impacts of risks and uncertainties? 164.107.102.21 (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Scientists do attempt statistics-based predictions all the time; there are dozens of known factors. See 15 Ways to Predict Divorce and these academic papers. However, I don't know about making predictions for an individual, rather than an average couple. Divorce insurance says it was only offered once and the company went out of business. 184.147.120.88 (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

As an actual scientist I would take offense to those sorts of sociology wasters-of-time being called scientists.....Fgf10 (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It is actually possible for social scientists and natural scientists to talk amicably about quantitative methods. I recommend trying it. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Predicting the success of a marriage is like predicting the weather. There are countless factors involved, and the best you can do is predict probabilities based on past observations. The overriding factor in marriage might be the level of commitment to the marriage by both parties. And that level may not be known before the marriage, or even some time after. And notice the emerging "dark side" of the same sex marriage issue: Some high-profile celebs who got same-sex-married are already getting same-sex-divorced while the ink was barely dry from the marriage certificate. One would think that their level of commitment to such a marriage would have been high. But maybe their commitment was more to "the cause" than to the actual marriage. But there have been same-sex partners that stayed together for decades, despite the lack of any legal commitment. The last I heard, the current opposite-sex divorce rate in America is around 50 percent. Don't be surprised if the divorce rate among same-sex partners eventually approaches that figure. But two folks getting married aren't a group - they're two individuals, with countless vectors pushing the marriage one way or another, just as there are countless vectors pushing hot and cold fronts one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit like the weather, though, in that we can predict to some extent. Hot weather is more likely in summer, cold weather in winter. Similarly, divorce rates are low in countries where the law makes divorce is difficult or impossible, higher in other countries. But we can't say whether it will rain at 3pm or 3.30pm. Stochastic is the word for it. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you should squeeze the time interval at which the weather becomes unpredictable even narrower, if you can predict how fast the rain cloud is approaching your town. 164.107.103.161 (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

John Gottman predicts the likelihood in 3 to 5 minutes here...doubt he would hold out much hope for me & Fgf10. Tommy Pinball (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I must add that the 50% divorce rate thing in the United States is a disputed number, because there are quite a few sources that seem to suggest that the rate is a myth, even Psych Central. In any case, I would be extremely cautious about using 50% as the realistic/actual divorce rate of the country. Furthermore, since divorce rates are correlated (not caused by!) with age of marriage, education level, personal finances, family values/relationships and commitment, Asians are known to have the lowest divorce rate in the U.S. 164.107.103.161 (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Oldest residential building?

What's the oldest residential man-made building, that is still inhabited with average citizens? (It would be cool to live in a 1,000 years old home. Just wondering, no specific reason for asking) Let's exclude "natural" buildings like caves or grottos, "temporary" buildings like tents, and buildings, that are primarily used for non-residential purposes like churches, monasteries, castles or storage halls. Bonus points for oldest residential, inhabited building per continent. Of course the building can be renovated, but a huge part of it should be "old". GermanJoe (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• "oldest continuously inhabited house in Britain", since 1148.
• Taos Pueblo "said to be the oldest continuously inhabited houses still occupied" in the US, since c. 1000.184.147.120.88 (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Talmud Schottenstein Ed. Text in all upper case type

In the English pages of the Schottenstein edition of the Talmud, in tractate Berachos, some of the bold faced type [the literal translation] is in upper and lower case, and some is in upper case only. I am trying to find out if there is a reason for this, and if the all-caps portions have a special significance.70.251.235.221 (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)