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

December 5

Is Day of the Dead 1, 2, or 3 days long?

Our article claims all 3, and I can't seem to find any definitive answer. Kaldari (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Entertainment is the right desk for this. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Never mind that, sorry, I thought you meant a movie! I am not sure of the answer in Mexico, but in the US Catholics have (mischief night, then) Halloween, All Saints Day, and All Souls Day. Halloween is technically the eve of All Saints Day from the Christian perspective. That would be three days: the eve of and the day after All Saints Day. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Mexican dessert cube

Does anybody know a Mexican (possibly Latin American dish) which looks like a brown sugar cube and dissolves in your mouth? II don't think it was chocolate and I can't seem to find it on Category:Mexican desserts. It is probably available in US since that is where I first tried it.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about panela? --Trovatore (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Less likely but maybe one of the Latin American flans? Rmhermen (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Help finding Lute Song (琵琶記/pipa ji) French translation by A. P. L. Bazin

Does anyone know where to find an online archive of Lute Song (琵琶記/pipa ji) French translation (1841) by A. P. L. Bazin? I do not know the name of the French title or what the full form of the author's name is.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be Antoine Bazin also known as "Bazin aîné". — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that! It's the translator. Now all I need is a link to his work, which should be in the public domain. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Susan Sontag quote

Hi, all - I have the vaguest memory of her giving a speech in which she relates the experience of shock to the experience of finding yourself outside the narrative of your life, as it were - like you're living a story that's familiar, whether it's pleasant or unpleasant, and then suddenly something happens that couldn't possibly fit that story. Does this ring a bell for anyone?

Thanks - sorry to give such vague clues.

Adambrowne666 (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried [[1]]? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, RedPen - it's not there, but that's a great resource. Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@Adambrowne666: - Seems like something she could've said in one of the On Photography essays, which talk about the experience of being photographed and objectified, separated from the subject, visible to and owned by unknown others. Wish I had more ready to hand, but it's worth a read regardless :) --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - I will read it - i've only come to her recently, and she provides a wealth of stuff - but on further reflection, the quote was in a talk she gave on globalisation; I'm going to look into that now. Thanks again 03:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Simon Rattle

What foreign languages does he speak? He's been conducting the Berlin Phil since 2002 so one would have thought his German ought to be pretty good by now. Also his wife is Czech so maybe he speaks Czech as well. Thanks, --Viennese Waltz 13:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

He speaks a bit of German in this, but it doesn't sound terribly fluid to me. His son's opinion of Rattle's German is briefly mentioned at the end of this interview. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Given how many Europeans speak English as a second language... he may not need to speak anything else. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The orchestra's website defaults to an English version (though I suppose it may be detecting my location when doing that). Judging by the names of members, many of them are not Germans, so it's quite plausible that English is their lingua franca. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Words for traitors against independence of a nation

Harki and Rajakar were used on people who were against the independence of Algeria and Bangladesh. Is there other words to describe people who were against the independence of their own nation? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.45 (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Have you googled "traitor synonym"? Have you chcked the archives (was it you who asked something similar to this over the summer?) Is there a specific language you want? There are plenty of terms like tory/loyalist, quisling, Haw Haw, Tokyo Rose, Benedict Arnold, depending on exact context and meaning.μηδείς (talk) 9:41 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Quisling is used to denote a traitor to their own country. Rojomoke (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Loyalist (or Tory) in the American Revolution. Southern Unionist, later scalawag, in the Confederate States of America. Copperheads is a more colorful term used for southern sympathizers in the North (Union). Rmhermen (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It was the CSA who were the traitors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Counter-revolutionary is the generic term. Kaldari (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Counter revolutionary is a marxist epthet that has nothing to do with independence per se, just opposition to a marxist revolution. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It didn't mean that originally, but it was hijacked. Arguably, the folks who sacked the Cromwells were "counter-revolutionaries". But instead they "restored" the monarchy, as if it had merely been on probation for ten years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This was closed as trolling, along with the two following unsigned questions. I suggest seeing the talk discussion. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

census scared or not allowed to publish ethnicity and religion

In France, they don't publish ethnicities and religions in numbers by departments or cities in their stats reports. Israel don't publish the term Mizrahi, Sephardi, Ashkenazi or Haredi, reform, or cconservative when it comes to which population has highest in number of these groups. In US, they don't publish religions in numbers by states, or cities in their stats report. What other nations do like this? Please answer this. don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.45 (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No conspiracy in the U.S. - they don't publish it because they don't ask the question. In fact, they are forbidden to.[2] There are other non-Census attempts to answer the question though like the American Religious Identification Survey. Rmhermen (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the reasons why the U.S. doesn't ask the question is the constitutionally guaranteed protections for freedom of religion in the United States. There's a good chance that an innocuous question which wasn't used for anything except data collection probably doesn't violate either of the freedom of religion clauses of the Constitution (the free exercise clause and the establishment clause). However, information is power, and there is a real threat that, with information those in power may abuse that information (c.f. the current NSA data mining controversy). For this reason, to prevent the Government from potentially violating the law, the data is not collected at all. It's easier just not to collect it, since it, by the constitution, serve no official purpose. However, as noted, there are non-governmental agencies that do collect and publish that information. Besides the one noted above, the one I know that has a good reputation is the Pew Research Center, see http://religions.pewforum.org/ --Jayron32 19:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

As states that are secular (albeit with different nuances to their secularism), the governments of the United States and France don't consider religion a relevant category and thus don't collect data on it. In France, there is a public myth that ethnic origin is irrelevant to the French republican identity, so for ideological reasons the state formally ignores it (but informally and arguably hypocritically takes it into account). In Israel, there are similar official blinders about Jewish ethnicity and religious sects. 67.132.19.18 (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it not the case that France specifically doesn't ask about race and religion because of the whole Nazi occupation thing, where such information was used to round people up? It may be that the deeper point or justification is to do with republican principles, but isn't that interpretation of the republican principles generally considered to be motivated by horror at what was previously done? 86.164.26.129 (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is a part of the reason, but France didn't collect this data even before WWII and even before the Nazis came to power. Also, as a side note, the odds of Nazis coming to power in and/or conquering France nowadays are extremely tiny. Futurist110 (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding that side note. It's not the risk of Nazis or their likes coming to power that is the point. It's that categorizing people by religion is something that Nazis do. /176.10.249.240 (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The article Race and ethnicity in censuses could help answer a part of your question here. Futurist110 (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No conspiracy in France either. "Ethnicity" and "Religion" are quite simply outside the range of things considered important by the republic hence - as for shoe size and favorite color - no information is ever gathered by the government on these subjects.2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:5A2:577D:7DF4:AF7C (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "no conspiracy" because racial data has indeed been misused in a wide variety of ways useful to one side or another in the U.S., and choosing not to collect religious data avoids the same. For example, the internment of people of Japanese ancestry during World War II, the creation of "minority-majority districts" (which reduces the number of districts at issue, yet effectively gives illegal aliens voting power because the districts are allocated according to total number of residents), and the practice of siting undesirable public facilities in minority neighborhoods. There's a lot more politics that could have occurred in response to religion had more data been available. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that the data is still availible, just not collected by the government. There is still nothing to stop unscrupulous public officials from abusing their power in regards to that data. They just have to get it from non-Governmental sources. That is, gerrymandering and Environmental racism would still happen even if the government didn't collect the relevent data; the data is still collected by private agencies and exists. Once it exists, people will still use it. Ostensibly, the reason the government collects said data (at least on ethnicity) is to ensure that violations of civil rights DON'T occur (that is, how can agencies of the government protect the civil rights of disadvantaged groups if it has no data on where those groups live and what their living conditions are like!) Whether that occurs as intended, or if the information is abused, is a matter for another discussion, but there is at least a real justifciation for collecting it in the first place. --Jayron32 17:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The U.S. Census has been collecting data about basic racial classifications of the U.S. population uninterruptedly from 1790 to the present... AnonMoos (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No...they have been trying, but that doesn't mean everyone is complying. I didn't in the last census and my neighbor didn't help them when they tried to get the information from them. Heck...Wikipedia has more information about my ethnicity than the US census. They actually used that information to round up Japanese citizens in California to take the property of these individuals and confine them in internment camps. This is not an exaggeration and I find the whole thing rather stupid. But that is just me....and a lot of people.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as a "conspiracy"...that is an opinion and one I actually believe. When people get rounded up and their personal property stolen and they are jailed over hyper paranoia....conspiracy is the least of the issues.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Lying on your census form is an unfortunate approach to take. 72 years from that census, when you're long gone and the census becomes public record, descendants of yourself and/or your relatives might be interested in knowing the true facts about their family trees. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's purely hypothetical either - in 2001 I remember thinking it was a good thing that the government didn't have a database of who all the Muslims were. Sure, there were many databases, public and private, but bureaucrats act differently when they think they have a complete and authoritative list than when they only have a partial list. Wnt (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, the French government knows where all the Muslims are, at least roughly, which is good enough for policing purposes. And it knows where the Islamist activists are, and activists of all stripes. Censuses and surveys are only a tiny part of that. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Have to agree with Jayron32 and Itsmejudith here. The idea that governments or legislators are inherently more restrained on what they do when they don't have census or 'authoritative list's doesn't seem to be supported by any actual evidence of historic practice etc. If anything, it just makes the government etc panic more that they don't know where all these 'evil' people are or even how many of them there is allowing the panic mongers to claim that there are way more then there are and makes it easier for them to blame all problems on them (both of which they will do any way but at least with decent data it's easier to expose clear bullshit). In the case of France for example, it doesn't stop people with 'funny' names being discriminated against, it doesn't stop the rise of immigrant heavy areas with high levels of crime and poverty and alleged police misbehaviour in said areas (along with ID checks which seem to be depends at least partially on what someone looks like [3]), it didn't stop the French Roma expulsion. In other words while there is an obvious risk of misuse of census data and historic examples of it in a number of countries, there's no real evidence the lack of such data makes governments less likely to to engage in such misbehaviour rather than simply use what data they do perhaps combined with collecting more data or not even caring about the quality of the data before engaging in such misbehaviour. I would say this is even more so in our data centric modern world. Perhap in the case of a moment of insanity sort of thing where it might be imagined when there is the data but in 3 years time by the time there is good data (if there really is no data which is rarely true) people would have realised it was an insane idea there is some greater risk, but in other cases, it seems to either make the government just collect the data when they decide they need it or use the flawed data they do have, whatever the consequences of that. (And one thing I'm not sure of in the US - Japanese case is how much it was based on ethnicity and how much it was based on where you were born. I'm aware many second or more generation Japanese were detained, but how much this came from the census or came from other ways like the detention of their parents I don't know.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of white, "Christian" terrorists in the world too. I'd like to see some evidence that census data from 1940 was used to round up Japanese-Americans during WWII. It would be much more obvious to simply check the phone books for any Japanese-sounding names... along with going to neighborhoods and looking for them. This is why Chinese-Americans took to wearing "I am Chinese" buttons in the hope they wouldn't be mistaken for Japanese. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Um check out our article? United States Census. As for phone books what percentage of people even had phones in 1940? Nil Einne (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Muslim majority African states has non-Muslim leader since independence

Which African nations that has a Muslim majority population has been ruled by a non-Muslim leader since independence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.45 (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Boutros Ghali was Prime Minister of Egypt, and a Christian. --Jayron32 16:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Maurice Yaméogo was President of Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso), and converted to Christianity from a local Anamist religion. In fact, many (possibly most) of the people listed at List of heads of state of Burkina Faso, including the current president, Blaise Compaoré, seem to be from Christian backgrounds, according to Islam by country Burkina Faso is 58% Muslim. --Jayron32 16:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Siaka Stevens was head of state of Sierra Leone, a majority Muslim nation, and a Christian himself. --Jayron32 17:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

François Tombalbaye was head of state of Chad, a majority Muslim nation, and a Christian himself. --Jayron32 17:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Tanzania has no majority religion, but Islam, at 40%, is the most prominent religion. Julius Nyerere was a Roman Catholic. --Jayron32 17:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Léopold Sédar Senghor was a Catholic president of Sénégal, which has a large Muslim majority. --Xuxl (talk) 09:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

House of Cards

Hi there. I was wondering if you could help me out here. The (original 1990) series of House of Cards (UK TV series) is based on the novel by Michael Dobbs. Can anyone confirm if it is just the first four episodes (the original run) of the series that is based on the novel, and not the other two (To Play The King and The Final Cut}. So essentially, if I've only seen the first four episodes (and not the sequels), am I going to 'spoiler' myself if I read the novel before watching the later episodes. Thank you. Horatio Snickers (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak to the question you've posed, but I must comment that if you intend to both read the novel and watch the shows, then a) if they are based on the novel you will spoil it either way, since watching the show first would "ruin" the book, or b) no connection, no spoiler. Either way, you should be able to enjoy it. Mingmingla (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't possibly comment on the novels, but the British adaptations are of much shorter length, so you may wish to watch them before the American. The British version of the first story would have seemed clipped and anticlimactic had I seen if after the first American season. μηδείς (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The later TV series are based on the other Dobbs novels in a trilogy; To Play The King and The Final Cut. So the answer is "yes", it IS just the first four episodes of the series that is based on the novel. Alansplodge (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

US presidential bill signings

Although File:Signing of the Poverty Bill.jpg doesn't show it clearly, I'm holding a picture from the signing of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 which shows President Johnson's desk in high resolution, making it clear that there are at least thirteen different pens on his desk. Since only one presidential signature is required for a bill, no matter how long, what's the point of the extra pens? Is it common to for presidents to use one pen for one letter in the signature, another for the next, etc., on landmark legislation? 2001:18E8:2:1020:FDB3:68AD:F06C:A673 (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's a previous post that was answered: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009_March_9#How_many_pens_does_it_take.3F Katie R (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Also see This Google Search for more answers. --Jayron32 20:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Those are souvenir pens for whoever was attending the ceremonial signing. I vaguely recall that LBJ handed out all the souvenir pens and then pulled his own regular pen out of his pocket and signed it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Somewhere I recall seeing a signing where just about every letter was signed with a different pen. DOR (HK) (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that has been done also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Repenting.

question answered. Seek a spiritual counselor for professional advice
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How does one repent? And what does repent mean, said as simply as possible? Applies to the world. --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Read the Wikipedia article titled Repentance. There are many different perspectives on what repentence is and how to achieve it, both from a secular and religious perspective. If you read that article, you can learn a whole lot about it and arrive at your own conclusions. --Jayron32 20:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Sorry, but I can't (really can't) read complicated texts. Does the article indeed give the answer to my question? --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC) We cannot think on your behalf. μηδείς (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hell.

question answered, we are not a reading service and do not supply opinions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Are we in hell? Serious question. Applies to the world. --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Read the Wikipedia article titled hell to learn more about the subject. You can then arrive at your own answer. --Jayron32 20:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Sorry, but I can't (really can't) read complicated texts. Does the article indeed give the answer to my question? How could you reply so fast? --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC) We provide sources, we do not digest and regurgitate them. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC) L'enfer, c'est les autres. Kaldari (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps try the simple English version of the article. Dismas|^(talk) 21:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

21st Century Novels with Very High (1000+) Lexile Scores

Does anybody know any 21st century novels with very high (1000+) lexile scores? It must use long, complex sentences and challenging but vibrant vocabulary. A modern equivalent of Nathaniel Hawthorne. 140.254.229.134 (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

See Lexile if (like me) you had no idea what the question was about. Alansplodge (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Dishes of Arab World

Is there websites that shows the dishes in the Arab world, by nation and explains if the dish is a Berber dish, French, Turkish or other European due to influences of Ottoman and European colonial powers, regardless appetizers, main course and desserts and snacks? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.45 (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article is at Arab cuisine which also leads to some more specific country articles while noting that a number of dishes are widespread. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You know, after significant cultural contact, it might not always be too easy to assign some "dishes" to a single cultural origin (e.g. Chop suey, Vindaloo, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that the last wave of colonialism didn't impact Arab cooking that much. Brits might had brought French Fries, to accompany a shawarma, but that's about it. French culinary influences are seemingly much less in North Africa than in West Africa. As per Ottoman influences, all of the eastern Mediterranean (Arab East, Turkey, Greece, etc.) shares common culinary traditions, and origins of different dishes are often hotly disputed along nationalist lines. --Soman (talk) 07:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

December 6

US female voter turnout in 1920 and 1924

What was the voter turnout % of females in the US presidential elections of 1920 and 1924 compared to the male voter turnout? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.49.165.49 (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The data on this is spotty because it was collected in surveys only. But it would be more accurate to look at individual states than the entire country, as numerous states already had women's suffrage before the 19th amendment. And most of the polls that were conducted at the time tended to suffer from extreme selection bias. One of the few good studies we do have was done in Chicago in 1924, and concluded that only 35% of women in the area voted in the first presidential election after receiving the right[4]. As far as government records go, for most of US history we have no idea what the gender breakdown of the voters really was. That, combined with the facts that there was significant fluctuation in turnout even without suffrage and states gradually implemented suffrage, Voter turnout in the United States presidential elections is hard to interpret. But what you do see there is that turnout of eligible voters is about the same from 1920 to 1924, which would suggest that women are voting at similar rates to men. We also have a study that looked at turnout in individual states, and lined them up according to when they gave women suffrage: see page 1170 of this. Keep in mind that this study is defining voter turnout as the turnout of all adults, not just eligible ones. What we see there is that the average turnout the election prior to suffrage is about 25% (so ~50% of eligible men), and that after suffrage it is about 38%. Assuming the male ratio didn't change, this would suggest 26% of eligible women voted (but once again, given the large fluctuations even before suffrage, this is hard to interpret). You can look online and find more such surveys conducted in different means and over different areas. It is unfortunate there was not a large, nationwide effort to find out how long it took women on average to take advantage of their new rights, until long after. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

So I guess to give a direct answer to your question: Anywhere between half as many and just as many appear to be reasonable estimates based on the available data, but we can't know for sure. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, there were women voting (and even being elected to congress) before 1920 -- there was nothing preventing a state from choosing to give women the vote before the 19th amendment was passed... AnonMoos (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Largest sunken shipment of computers

I've been looking up sunken ships and the bacteria that are found in them; and was wondering what the largest shipment of computers to sink beneath the sea happens to be. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you resolve these two conflicting studies?

This study from the CDC claims that 70% of unreciprocated domestic violence is initiated by women, while this study claims that 85% of domestic violence victims are women. These two claims seem to contradict each other, so which is right? 74.15.137.253 (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither of the links you have provided works... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed the links provided by the IP. They now work, though no comment yet on the actual question. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read the linked studies, but it's easy to see that the two conclusions you mentioned are not necessarily contradictory. The first claim is that "70% of unreciprocated domestic violence (presumably a very restricted set) is initiated by women". The second claims that 85% of all domestic violence victims are women. To illustrate, let's say for the sake of argument there are 100,000 incidences of domestic violence. Let's say further that in only 100 of those cases did the victim not reciprocate. According to the percentages given in your question, 70 (70% of 100) of the 100,000 incidences would have been initiated by women, while 85,000 (85% of 100,000) of the overall victims would have been women. So it is possible that the studies do not contradict each other. To find out whether the actual numbers bare that out or not would require reading the studies and I don't feel inclined to do so tonight.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 08:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

How can 85% of victims of reciprocated domestic violence be women when every instance of reciprocated domestic violence (ignoring gay marriage) involves one man and one woman? The only way I can see it happening is if men were much more likely to be repeat offenders with multiple women -- but in order for the math to work out, you'd need male perpetrators of DV to attack on average ~6 women, which is surely not the case. 74.15.137.253 (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Simple. Person 1 beats person 2. The first study says that if person 2 doesn't fight back, 70% of the time person 1 was a woman. The second study says that 85% of the time, person 2 is a woman regardless. Since the studies measure different things, they don't contradict each other. It's like saying "75% of all people prefer chocolate ice cream" and "80% of the people who eat strawberry ice cream eat it out of a cup rather than a cone". The studies both deal with domestic violence, but don't measure the same thing. Plus, as William noted, since we're dealing in percentages, we have no idea what subpopulation of ALL domestic violence cases are represented by your first study. --Jayron32 18:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"The second study says that 85% of the time, person 2 is a woman regardless." This strikes me as impossible. Replace "reciprocated domestic violence" with "dancing". If we suppose that men only dance with women and vice versa, then ~50% of the people who dance will be women, precisely because every dance involves one man and one women. The figure might not be exactly 50% because men might be more likely to dance with multiple partners, but the 50% figure will be close enough. 74.15.137.253 (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

About 50 percent of the people involved in a relationship where domestic violence is happening will be women. But that doesn't mean that women beat men as often as men beat women. The two are unrelated facts. The second study merely states that, when a beating is going on, 85% of the time it's the man's fists and the woman's face that are involved. Why do you think that is impossible? --Jayron32 02:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not impossible but I don't think that's what the study is claiming. Here's (PDF) a link to the actual study. If you read the methodology section, you'll see that they don't ask people how often they've been a victim of DV, just *if* they've been a victim. 74.15.137.253 (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

So? That seems perfectly reasonable that of all people who have been beaten by their partner, 85% are women. I'm not sure what about that figure seems unreasonable to you... --Jayron32 02:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused because it conflicts with the CDC report, which says that the majority of victims are male. This (PDF) law paper states that in most studies male victims are as common as female victims. But the DoJ is a reputable source, so I don't know who to believe... 74.15.137.253 (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That isn't what the CDC report says. What the CDC report says is that when the victim doesn't defend themselves, they're probably male. Again, you're confusing "Person takes a beating" versus "Person takes a beating and doesn't try to hit back". In case 1, the person taking the beating is usually female, 85% of the time. In case 2, you have what could be a subset of case 1, and which merely states that in that smaller subset where the person doesn't hit back, the person who isn't hitting back is male 70% of the time. --Jayron32 04:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

We're going around in circles. The CDC study only distinguishes between reciprocated and unreciprocated violence. It does not ask whether the violence when reciprocated was in self defense or not. So when the CDC claims that the majority of unreciprocated DV victims are male, given that ~50% of reciprocated DV victims are male (using a loose definition of victim to mean simply that your partner used violence against you, even if it was in self-defense), we have a contradiction with the Bureau of Justice claim that 85% of DV victims (using the same definition as above) are women. Ultimately, the studies don't ask whether the violence used against you was in self-defense or not, so neither study aims to find out the "true" victim. 74.15.137.253 (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sample differences. The CDC study analysed "data on young US adults aged 18 to 28 years from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health", which is a fairly narrow sge range - maybe this generation is anomalous. The stats at the Statistics Brain link gets its figures from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. It's possible their figures are based on cases of domestic violence which become involved in the justice system, and that male victims of domestic violence are less likely to report their abuse to the police and the courts. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought something similar but StatisticsBrain actually also says "Percent of domestic crimes reported to police" which would seem to imply it includes incidents not reported to the police somehow. SB also mentions 20-24 year olds are the most likely to experience domestic violence. This doesn't make it impossible that 18-28 olds skew the results in a different direction, but it makes it less likely. In any case, trying to compare these two sets of statistics, particularly since we don't know anything about the SB statistics. If you want to compare them, you'll need to find out more about the definitions used, how they were derived (I presume surveys since they includes ones not reported but we don't know what surveys) etc. For example, I would note that the paper cited mentions that men are more likely to cause injury than women (although it doesn't seem that much higher). It may be the SB statistics are excluding some stuff with limited violence that doesn't cause injury from the victims. SB also seems to contradict itself. In the victims table it says 85% are women. Later it says "Percent of the victims of domestic violence that are women : 95%". A possible typo but probably best taken another indication SB should be avoided. If you want to do these sort of detailed analysis, look for something with statistics you can meaningfully compare not random stuff found from an internet search (or whatever). Nil Einne (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's there original study. As you say, it gets its data from a survey (National Crime Victimization Survey) rather than from the justice system itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.137.253 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Look at the abstract for the first study. 24% of relationships with violence - half of that unrequited. That means that we're speaking of 8% vs. 4% for women and men respectively, for violence as a feature of the relationship. Now the abstract for the second study concerns crime, and all methodological concerns aside, women pretty much don't get arrested or go to jail. If a cop comes in the door and the guy and the girl are beating the crap out of each other, he's taking the guy. Wnt (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the second study (PDF) uses a survey, exactly like the first study. 74.15.137.253 (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to take another stab at explaining what Jayron tried to explain. Suppose there are 1 billion married couples in the world. Every year, 10 women beat up their husbands, and the husbands don't reciprocate. Every year, 1 million men beat up their wives, and the wives always reciprocate. In this hypothetical world, the CDC study would read "In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in 100% of the cases". The second study would read "Victims of Domestic Violence: Women: 99.999%". --Bowlhover (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help me out, but I don't think that's true. Here's what I wrote above: "The CDC study only distinguishes between reciprocated and unreciprocated violence. It does not ask whether the violence when reciprocated was in self defense or not. So when the CDC claims that the majority of unreciprocated DV victims are male, given that ~50% of reciprocated DV victims are male (using a loose definition of victim to mean simply that your partner used violence against you, even if it was in self-defense), we have a contradiction with the Bureau of Justice claim that 85% of DV victims (using the same definition as above) are women. " The point I"m trying to make is that the Bureau of Justice study (PDF)only asks whether your partner has ever used violence against you, so it doesn't look into who struck first. 74.15.137.253 (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

historical events since 1913

My grandmother is about to celebrate her milestone 100th birthday. Im trying to put together a list of wordiode major historical events in the last 100 years from 1913 - 2013 can you help? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.175.116 (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You could start with our article listing events of 1913 and continue from there. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

What's 'wordiode'? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 13:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. “timeline 20th century” will get you lots of great stuff, including these:

• BBC British history timeline,
• Major wars of the 20th century,
• 20th century history,
• artistic, cultural, social, scientific and political events,
• 20th century inventions
• and (for fun) toys and games of the 20th century.

See also Wikipedia’s 20th century. Happy birthday to your grandmother! 184.147.136.249 (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting things kept happening after 31 December 2000, when the 2oth century ended. See also 21st century, which included the 9/11 attacks, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Arab Spring. the first African-American US president, the completion of the Human Genome Project, the discovery by robot Mars explorers that Mars once had water, the first space probe leaving the solar system, High Def and 3D TV in widespread use,and the spread of the internet and mobile phones to the majority of the world's population. Edison (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• What might be interesting would be to find a visible star 100 light years distant assuming she can see its light. The northern star Alkaid in the Big Dippe and the southern Alnair are each approximately some 100 light years distant. μηδείς (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm still curious about the OP's word "wordiode". I assume it's a typo, but I can't work out what for. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

"worldwide"? Skipped a w, fat-fingered i/o. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Identifying wallpaper pattern

Does anyone know what words describe this type of pattern (so I can search for it in the form of fabric) --78.148.106.99 (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Try searching for "damask print fabrics" on a Google image search which brings up some fabrics with a similar pattern. Actual damask is a monochrome fabric where the motif is woven differently to the background. 83.104.128.107 (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Flock wallpaper. Very popular, at least in the UK, in the '70s and still notoriously popular in curry restaurants and dirty pubs. Nowadays considered naff (especially in private dwellings). If you put it up in your house, you too will be considered by any passing Englishman to be either some missing link from the '70s or irredeemably naff. On the other hand, it's probably considered the height of sophistication in primitive societies, such as Australia. You may run the risk that any passing Australian will mistake your house with its flock wallpaper as a dirty pub-cum-brothel, invite himself inside, and behave accordingly. I wouldn't risk it if I were you, but it is, of course, up to you. 86.183.79.28 (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a bad redirect (from Flock wallpaper to Flocking (texture)). If I do an image search for "flock wallpaper" or "flock pattern" I see a lot of elaborate, abstract, monochrome, leafy patterns in wallpaper group cm, like the pattern the OP was asking about. Image searching for damask shows the same kind of patterns. The Flocking (texture) article isn't even describing a pattern, but a physical texture formed by random small linear particles that simulate grass or velvet. This V&A museum page says there is a connection, the wallpaper being originally made using powdered wool in imitation of velvet, but the term seems to have been transferred to a particular kind of typically Victorian era pattern.  Card Zero  (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@ IP 86.183 etc: Just for that, we're gonna beat your so-called cricketers 5-0 in the Ashes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what naff is supposed to mean, sounds quite twee. Neither of my sets of grandparents were alive during Victoria's reign, but both had wallpaper with this pattern, and my parents inherited a couch (on which my dog bore puppies) with it. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Quotes on the cross-race effect

Are there any remembered quotes by famous persons relating to the cross-race effect, particularly prominent African-Americans refuting the prejudice that 'all blacks look alike'? --KnightMove (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

A different angle on it, I wish I could remember his name, but I recall a Japanese-American comedian some decades ago saying, with purposeful stereotyped accent, "Awr Americans rook arike." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC))

House of Lords maiden speech

Sometime in the 1980s (or possibly 1990s, certainly no later) I read about a member of the House of Lords who had given his maiden speech. The unusual thing was that he had been a member for many years and had never spoken a word in the House before. IIRC it was the longest time anyone had gone before making a maiden speech. The subject of the speech was water management, the need to save water to avoid droughts and so on. Can anyone find the name of the Lord and the date of his speech? Thanks, --Viennese Waltz 13:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Baron Trevor (4th, I guess) after 43 years? In May 1993: [5] 184.147.136.249 (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sadly not, but thanks for trying. The subject of that speech was policing [6], the one I'm looking for was definitely about water. --Viennese Waltz 14:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ask Kittybrewster. 86.183.79.28 (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know about that Hansard resource. With the search string "lords water drought maiden" I found this possibility. Could Gerald Spring Rice, 6th Baron Monteagle of Brandon be your man? Maiden speech on 11 March 1992 after being in the House for 47 years. 184.147.136.249 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. I should have tried that search string myself; thanks very much. --Viennese Waltz 22:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Great! And don't beat yourself up. I tried several other strings without luck too; it's not an easy site to search because there is so much material. 184.147.136.249 (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Well done! I looked but didn't find anything. Lord Monteagle probably thought that he ought to get in while he could - I see that he was one of those excluded from the House in the 1999 reforms. Alansplodge (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Amish

Do any amish use electricity? Just yes or no, or elaborate if you need. --78.156.109.166 (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

See the Wikipedia article titled Amish life in the modern world. --Jayron32 15:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Besides the "yes" given in that article, there are occasional extreme examples; when I was growing up in Ohio, my parents knew an Amish bishop who was an electrician. The article's comments about solar panels, batteries, generators, etc. are definitely much more common among the Amish than electricians. Nyttend backup (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

However, it seems VERY likely that if the Amish are using solar panels and generators, as well as other electrical infrastructure, there would need to be some Amish electricians to keep all that stuff maintained. The Amish are primarily isolationist (that's why they don't hook into the electric grid, as explained in the article, NOT because they are opposed to using electricity per se) and it seems likely they'd rather have a trained electrician in the community to maintain their own equipment than have to go outside the community to find one. --Jayron32 02:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Har din mor lære dig at være så uforskammet, når du stille spørgsmål, IP 78?

Ja eller nej?

μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The OP was not rude. That is a personal attack. 184.147.136.249 (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The OP was indeed rude, then editted his question after I mentioned it. He clearly understood me. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Toron-trolls speak Danish? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

What are toron-trolls? μηδείς: Nej. Do you use translator? 184.147.136.249: How do I report him? Any admins here?/watching this? --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The OP, who geolocates to Denmark, has given repeated commands that we answer his questions immediately, in yes no form, that we read articles for him, and so forth. He has claimed that just now on the language desk that he doesn't have access to google, and that the drugs he's on makes it impossible for him to follow these threads. Given he understood my Danish question and has answered in the negative, and because of it editted his question after the fact to be polite, I hope the barrage of rude demands will not continue. μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

He would have been better off just leaving his original question. Initially adding "Just yes or no" without any qualifier was kind of pushy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

One anecdotal example: There is this TV series on one of the learning channels, featuring a guy who builds tree houses. On one show he had some Amish youth helping him, which included wielding some power tools. They explained that their philosophy is that it's OK to use such tools, they just don't want to own them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a discussion of the OP at ANI. μηδείς (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Urban Percentage of Germany's Total Population in or Around 1933

Does anyone know what percentage of Germany's total population lived in urban areas in or around 1933? I am curious about this, considering that Germany appeared to be (much) more industrialized when the Nazis came to power than in the cases of many other countries when extremists came to power. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Census in Germany has information on when official German Censuses were taken. You can use that as a launching point for your research. --Jayron32 17:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this info. Futurist110 (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Navigate to page 59:11 in the 1935 German Statistical Yearbook, where you will see Germany's population broken down by size classes of municipalities. The 1933 data don't seem to offer a standalone statistic for urban population. Municipality size is an imperfect proxy for degree of urbanization, but you might consider municipalities with more than 10,000 residents (or some other arbitrary threshold) as urban. "Gemeinden mit Einwohnern" means "municipalities with residents". "Weniger als" means "less than", "bis unter" means "up to", "Zahl der Gemeinden" means "number of municipalities", "Wohnbevölkerung" means "resident population", "Zahl" means "number", and "vH" means "percentage" (of the total German population). Marco polo (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This information here is extremely useful. Thank you very much for sharing this info with me. Anyway, I wonder which criteria Germany used in the 1925 and in the 1939 censuses to determine urban and rural areas (or did it only determine the population by municipality size in 1925 and/or in 1939 as well?) and which criteria Germany uses right now to determine urban and rural areas.

As for your suggestion of municipalities which have 10,000+ people being considered urban and the rest being considered rural, the 10,000+ number might be too high, since the United States's criteria for a place to be considered urban in 1920 was 2,500+ people. Futurist110 (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitions of "urban areas" vary widely from country to country, so different countries' statistics are not really comparable. While the U.S. Census Bureau defines the "urban" population of the country as those living in either "urban areas" or in places with populations over 2,500, "urban areas" are defined by population density. In Germany, a place with a population of 2,500, especially in 1933, was likely to have been a farming village, not urban in the usual sense of that word. I checked the latest edition of the German Statistical Yearbook, and it does not offer a statistic on the "urban" versus "rural" population of Germany. Such figures as exist on Germany's (present-day) urban and rural population seem to rely on a definition (explained here) by the Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt-, und Raumforschung (Federal Institute for Construction, Urban, and Spatial Research) that divides Germany's Kreise (usually translated "districts", which are second-order administrative subdivisions analogous to counties in the United States) and independent cities (cities that are not part of a Kreis) into "urban" and "rural" classifications. Everyone living in an independent city or urban Kreis belongs to the urban population. The rural population is the population of rural Kreise. Kreise are classified as rural if they have a population density under 150 per square kilometer. Independent cities and Kreise with more than 150 residents per square kilometer are classified as urban. This classification, as far as I can tell, did not exist in 1933. To recreate it, you'd need to collect the area and population of all of the Kreise in 1933 and calculate their density to assign them to urban and rural categories, and then add up the population of Kreise in each category. That's a bigger project than I'm prepared to take on, but you are welcome to pursue it. Marco polo (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I found 35% for the 1870s and 75% for now, so somewhere in between those. Another important point is that there is an urbanised corridor through Europe, running from South East England down to northern Italy. Western Germany is on that corridor. The Ruhr valley, for example, is very highly urbanised, while Bavaria is still rural. So it depends "what" Germany. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

From where exactly did you get your data from? Also, I checked the World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision and see that it shows Germany as 74% urban right now (which approximately matches with your info) and as 68% urban in 1950. I don't know exactly where you get your data from the 1870s from. Also, by Germany, I meant all of Germany within its 1933 borders (which I know significantly different from its present-day borders in the east). Futurist110 (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I just Googled and an economic history publication that looked serious came up. There should be very good figures lurking somewhere for the 1920s, and even the 1930s but it would take considerable research to find them. Even then you might have definitional problems. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Porn vs. prostitution

In California v. Freeman and the related New Hampshire decision it references, U.S. courts found that making porn films was protected speech, but prostitution isn't. What I'm wondering is, how is this line being maintained in the modern era?

For example, I would think that someone who might otherwise sell sex could put out an ad, "partner wanted for adult film enterprise - be the star of your own porno film!" The customer would be expected to put up an investment toward the joint enterprise. Video taken at the site could be edited afterward for "amateur adult film" distribution, if it is any good, and the two could share proceeds from the sales.

Fundamentally, I don't get how a court can claim that there is a distinction between illegally paying for a performance in person, versus legally paying for a performance to be filmed for you; I understand the courts were desperate to timidly assert the First Amendment after a long absence, but can't they by now go whole hog and wipe away anti-prostitution laws that exist only to stigmatize vulnerable women, to make it difficult for them to find other employment, and to defend organized crime's control over their activities? Wnt (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

How does prostitution qualify as "speech"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the courts have been treating it as freedom of speech for you to pay some scribble artist to prick you with a tattoo needle. So why can't you pay him to prick you with something more suitable for pricking, like, say, a prick? The purpose of a tattoo is an aesthetic experience; what is the purpose of paid sex but for someone to experience a certain sensation? And in practice there is just something so degrading - contrary to dignity and privacy - about the notion of police punishing some poor girl for selling herself, as if she didn't have enough problems already. Wnt (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

When have the courts dealt with challenges to the right to wear a tattoo? (Maybe only if it said "Death to the President" or something like that) And I must ask again, under what constitutional argument could the federal government decide that state laws against prostitution are null and void? Keep in mind it is legal in one county in Nevada. Has Nevada's right to legalize it ever been challenged in court? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Well [7][8] for example. Personally I can see the merits of public health regulation aimed at both groups, but as stated in the second case this isn't an excuse to ban the practice altogether. Wnt (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The US Federal Government has no constitutional authority to ban prostitution, as stated in our article Prostitution in the United States. The only federal laws regarding prostitution are related to sex trafficking. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, as with any other across-state-lines activities such as kidnapping. The question is, would the feds have authority to override the typical state-level laws against prostitution and somehow declare prostitution a constitutionally protected "right"? I don't think so. I can't think of anything in the Constitution or its amendments which would justify such an action. But maybe I'm overlooking something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

How does making an activity illegal make it difficult for a person to do some other activity? RudolfRed (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't. It's just that the assumption is that prostitution pays better than working at a fast-food joint. As to the question "Why doesn't the federal government revoke anti-prostitution laws?", they might be hard-pressed to come up with a constitutional argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• First, the distinction is absurd. But, First Amendment protections are federal, while anti-prostitution laws are state and local. There are all sorts of angles one could pursue, like zoning laws making it illegal to film outside a studio, or in a home, etc. The current policies are absurd, but better than they were before the 80's. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I was trying to think of any federal action on the subject of prostitution, and the Mann Act was the first thing that came to mind. That's in the negative, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There are both legal and practical arguments. The legal argument would be that distribution of a film is speech, clearly (in visual form). And the porn actors are being paid not to have sex, but to allow their sexual activity to be filmed and/or they are being paid for the copyright of said film. Since money was not changing hands for the purpose of having sex, no prostitution is occurring (debatable). You can also take a practical stance and say that since nearly everyone likes porn, and the porn industry has a lot of money, it will not be made illegal in the United States, even if the legal argument makes practically no sense. But once again I'd like to emphasize that in the case of porn, it is the act of distribution that is an exercise of free speech, not the act of having sex. We do have Pornography_in_the_United_States#Legality. Most of the arguments for making pornography illegal in the United States came down to obscenity, not prostitution (that is, they were attacking the distribution, not the act of creation). <personal opinion>Obscenity laws, mind you, are in general morally repugnant laws passed by overbearing nanny states that think they know what's best for you and will restrict your private life accordingly.</personal opinion> Someguy1221 (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Can't let this go without giving a link to the Dinosaur Comics strip on this very issue. --Trovatore (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There is at least one case in the US in which authorities attempted to equate pornography with prostitution, California v. Freeman. This case did not go beyond the California Supreme Court. A similar case was heard in New Hampshire in 2008. In both cases, the state supreme court ruled that prostitution/pimping laws do not restrict the production of pornographic videos. However, it must be stated that the rulings prevented the states from prosecuting pornographers using pimping laws. They did not forbid the states from prosecuting based on a hypothetical future law against pornography, although the California decision suggests the court would not have been keen to that approach either. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a basic question about First Amendment content-neutral restrictions and state law. I've heard (but am by no means familiar with) that some states have laws that set out strict guidelines about how pornographic films operate and they expressly provide exception from the prostitution laws. I don't know how accurate or common that is, but that's one practical possibility. Shadowjams (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

And the first amendment protection is not going to extend to illegal activities, such as various types of non-consensual abuse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess I didn't put enough question in this question. What I'm wondering is:

• Do any prostitutes try to present themselves as filmmakers to avoid legal action?
• Are there any countries where accepting legal porn has eventually led to upholding rights for sex workers?

Wnt (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I used to sell advertising for a periodical that earned a significant revenue from "escorts and masseurs". There were all sorts of gimmicks in the way they described their services. I eventually had a potential client call whom I went to visit, and it was quite obvious they were undercover police, pumping me for information. This was back before cheap digital recording was available. But If I were still selling advertising like that I would recommend the same ruse to my clients. μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

December 7

Are there any aging adopted parents over the age of 60 with adopted kids in their homes under 19?

Are there any aging adopted parents over the age of 60 with adopted kids in their homes under 19? Venustar84 (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. 61 vs 18 is not an overly-unusual parent-child age difference. It corresponds, potentially, to a parental age of 41 at the birth of the child. — Lomn 01:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I said adopted kids. Not naturally born kids. Venustar84 (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Clarify what you mean by giving an example. Lomn answered the question you asked. μηδείς (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is there any reason, Venustar84, why you think a 41-42 year old wouldn't have adopted an infant? I have a friend who adopted a child at 41. He'll be 60 when she's 19. The answer by Lomn is merely saying it would be ridiculous to presume that no 60 year old in the entire world would ever have a child, whom they had adopted, would be the age of 19. We don't need to name anyone in particular to answer the question, simple logic dictates that there are many, many people who have the age range you describe. --Jayron32 02:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A quick google search for "older parent adoption" yielded a number of results. See one article here that states that "it's a trend that's clearly heppening." Mingmingla (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting174.7.167.7 (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Many Inuit adopt a child when they are in their 50s and 60s. Usually a grandchild and there are quite a few single adoptive parents of that age. I notice the question actually asks about "adopted" parents. Did you mean people who were adopted and have then gone on to adopt or did you mean adoptive? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Legally, you can adopt anyone of any age, even those older than you. The practice goes even as far back as Roman times where Augustus Caesar adopted both his stepson and wife at his death. While rare in countries such as the United States, it does happen. For instance, a millionaire in Florida may decide to adopt his girlfriend and her kids to keep his assets and business interests away from an ex-wife who holds shares in a business with him. Adoption gives you more control. Disinheiritance is an easy legal thing to do as opposed to divorce. So people of any age do indeed adopt others of any age. Sometimes they all live together and sometimes they don't. State services get invovled with the adoption of a dependent minor. The state will deny an adoption if a homestudy suggests that the environment would pose a risk to the safety and welfare of the child. Persons with certain kinds of disabilities may need a physician's evaluation to alleviate concerns, but age or disability alone are not determining factors. A couple in their early 60s and in good health wishing to adopt a newborn, could probably do so in America, although many adoption agencies as a rule of thumb do not work with adoptive parent(s) over a certain age such as 50 or 40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.41.178.122 (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a bit Americentric, actually, if accurate at all. I can tell you that in the former Yugoslav republics, a person has to be at least 18 years older than the person he or she wishes to adopt, and the adoptee must be younger than 18. I have no idea why law would allow the creation of parent-child relationship between a 20-year-old (as the parent) and a 40-year-old (as the child). Surtsicna (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course laws vary by jurisdiction, but some US states allow and some do not allow adult adoption. Adult adoptions are a way of designating one's next of kin and heir, which is what Caesar's adoption did. It's actually the rational alternative to gay marriage law, in that it allows people to designate each other next of kin without the legal fiction of equating a homosexual couple with potential biological parents. μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

As if that was the only reason people wanted marriage equality, but that's neither here nor there in this discussion... :) Mingmingla (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The benefit of adult adoption, an institution of which many people are ignorant, is that it accomplishes all the desired aspects of gay marriage from a classic liberal viewpoint: choosing one's next of kin, heir, etc., without bringing in the sticky issues of, if a married lesbian gets pregnant, does her wife or the father have parental rights and responsibilities, or should employers and wedding cake makers be forced to treat gay couples like heterosexual couples. Of course gay weddings is a separate issue from the state imposing, rather than recognizing gay marriage. That's up to whoever performs the ceremony. μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Self closed since completely OT even though directly responding to a comment. Feel free to move the collpasing. Nil Einne (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

For clarity, you're saying that in some states mutual adult adoptions is possible and allows all the federal and state governmental benefits and responsibilities of marriage including the same inheritance and next of kin benefits, including when there are children and others involved (as many states treat partners and children differently), restrictions and responsibilities on dissolving? the adoptions as marriage, the same tax treatment, Medicaid/Medicare/Obamacare subsidy, nationality benefits, the same penalties on adultery (adultery is still a violation of UCMJ and a crime in a few states), recognition in other countries in the same manner as marriage, treatment when you do have children whatever you want the parents etc etc? Seems a bit strange to me since to use an example, considering adultery if you have sex with your non-adult adoptee you're likely to end up in prison rather than if you have sex with someone besides your non adult child so I wouldn't have expected it to be a crime to have sex with your adult adoptee, but the US does weird stuff I guess. P.S. Many but obviously not all are fine with the state recognising same sex marriage the same way they do opposite marriage. They don't require the state 'impose' it. This means the state should themselves treat the married couples the same in all ways (recognising with modern fertility treatment and modern law, even with an opposite sex couple the mother of a child may either not be the one carrying the child in her womb or may not be the one who provided the ovum she is now carrying). And that if a wedding cake make is free to refuse to provide a wedding cake to a black man and white woman or a black woman and white man getting married or a 109 year old woman marrying a 18 year old man, they're also free to refuse to provide a wedding cake to a man and man or a woman and woman getting married. (Similarly if they're not free to refuse such a request for the reasons of race, age or sex, they're not free to refuse to any of these requeests for any one of those reasons.) Whether or not the state should 'impose' on private business in this way is a matter for debate, but not on wikipedia and especially not in this topic. Nil Einne (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• I should mention both that the parents of my best friend from high school adopted their daughter's child when she got pregnant at 17, and that when the mother of the love of my life died in childbirth, and the father abandoned the family, the grandmother adopted all the children, and she was in her 50's at the time, while my HS friend's parents were in their forties. These adoptions occurred in the 1970's and 80's. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

As others have said, real world examples seem unnecessary we can take it as a given there are lots. But if you really want some, a simple internet search would do. For example, I did one using Google for '60 year old adopt' and found [9] [10] both of which include specific examples where someone was 60 or older when they adopted. We can take it as a given that these parents were over 60 and had an adopted child under 19 in their house since the only possibilites where this wouldn't have happened would be if the parent died before the child started living with them or the child never actually lived with them, but the descriptions discount that. (I'm taking over 60 to include someone 60 years and a day. I acknowlede that ages are sometimes used losely and so when it's said the person was 60 it may mean the person's 60th birthday is coming up or even the person is past their 59th birthday. But in any case and in fact even if you require someone to be 61 years old to be considered over 60 rather than 60 years and a day, in both examples it seems clear that the 60 year old parent did live with the child past their 61st birthday.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

British adoption agencies used to impose an age limit of 35 on both parents. They may have loosened up now. I hope so. The concept of adoption of over-18s isn't recognized in Britain. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the topic of adopting is a heavy duty subject. I find this article interesting: http://forums.adoption.com/34341219-post47.html

<removed copy of entire forum post>

Venustar84 (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Your overall point is very unclear. Is your question now, are there great grandparents who have adopted their own great grandchildren? (Having read stories of such in the paper, I would search for parents and grandparents who've been jailed or murdered.) Is calendar age unimportant? Can you state your question clearly in one sentence? μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

We need some clarity here. Are you phxmama? If not you should delete most of your post above, as you have likely violated their copyright by reproducting their comment here. Particularly since you in no way made it clear that you copied the comment so people may assume it was written by you and therefore released under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL. I would add there is also no reason to copy someone else's random rant on to the RD, particularly when that rant was written in reply to other stuff so is difficult to understand without reading it in context. Nil Einne (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If you are suggesting Venustar84 has copied something from another site, Nil, just close or delete it. User Venustar84 and his alternate names has, in the face of banning threats, promised many times to be on his best behavior at the ref desk, not to post nonsense or or more than one question a day, or otherwise to misbehave. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

For clarification I was referring to Venustar84. The rant above definitely appeared in another forum. If you follow the link provided [11], it's there. The link is actually to someone quoting the original comment rather than the comment itself (the correct link is here [12]).

My guess is when they said "Well, the topic of adopting is a heavy duty subject. I find this article interesting" what they actually meant was they found the forum post, not an article, interesting. So they wanted to show it to us and for added measure they copied the whole forum post here. Of course, there's no reason for them to quote/copy someone else's entire forum post. They don't really need any of it since some random person's rant is not really relevant to the RD, particularly when it is not answering anyone's question. And at the very least if they are going to do so they should make it clearer what they did.

However as the actual harm seems minimal, I'll give Venustar84 a chance to either remove the post themselves from here or confirm they are the author (I may have misunderstood), despite their history.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No I'm not the author. I just found the subject interesting. But I think I will leave the topic be now. Venustar84 (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

In that case, as I said above, please do not copy such a large amount of someone else's material on to the reference desk or anywhere else on wikipedia as it may be a WP:Copyvio. I have removed it for now, it would have been nice if you could have done so yourself after I pointed out the problem. In some cases, quoting highly relevant portions may be okay, but definitely not the material in its entirety. But there's rarely a good reason to quote some random person's opinion from a forum post anyway and you definitely should accurately describe it rather than calling it an 'article'. Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Devolution of federal power in India

Imagine that Parliament decides to devolve a decision on a question that's related to a power on the Union List. For example, instead of passing a law about what to do with lighthouses in a specific state, they pass a law granting that state's legislature the right to decide what to do with the lighthouses. Would this decision pretty much universally be seen as constitutional (after all, Parliament's making the ultimate decision) or pretty much universally seen as unconstitutional (after all, the state's doing the actual decisionmaking), or would there be a good deal of debate on the question? If our Federalism in India article addresses the question, I overlooked it. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a hard time imagining any national government intentionally devolving decisions that are constitutionally within their jurisdiction down to the state/provincial level. It is the nature of governments to try to amass power and jurisdiction... not to give it away once they have it. Blueboar (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess that's a function of where you live. In NZ where we lack a written constitution which combined with parliamentary sovereignty means pretty much everything is constitutionally in their jurisdiction, we do still have local governments. And so logically the national/central government has at times devolved decision making down to local governments. E.g. [13]. Parliamentary sovereignty does of course mean they can taking the decision making back at any time, and they have also done so. And there is also frequent criticism that the government has devolved stuff to local government so that they can blame someone else when things go wrong and don't have to fund it, while not actually giving much power nor ability to fund the stuff they devolved (somewhat related [14]). But the idea that governments don't devolve decisions just seems odd to me. And I suspect anyone in the UK, where AFAIK things have are similar, in fact to a greater level considering the devolved Northern Irish, Welsh and Scottish governments. Nil Einne (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Blueboar, see District of Columbia home rule. The US Constitution grants Congress the right to do whatever they want with DC (aside from general restrictions, e.g. the Bill of Rights), but Congress has devolved lots of local decisions to an elected city council, if for no other reason so that Congress doesn't have to waste tons of time on taxicab regulations and mandatory closing hours for bars. I don't remember hearing about significant objections to this practise; how many people in Oregon care about the issue, for example? In the same way, I'm curious whether the residents of Uttarakhand, Sikkim, and Goa would object or acquiesce or disagree with each other, were they to hear that Parliament preferred to let West Bengal deal with an old abandoned lighthouse. Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The EU has adopted a general principle of subsidiarity ("a matter ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralized authority capable of addressing that matter effectively")... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

December 8

Rear Admiral Lucien Young

Can you please tell me who authored the Wikipedia article on Rear Admiral Lucien Young. Thank You Very Much, Gene Moody Strathmore, Alberta, Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.195.243 (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If you click on the article "History" tab (here for a direct link), you can see all the editors who have worked on the page. The first version was put together by Wwoods, who you can contact via User talk:Wwoods, but several other editors have made significant contributions. Tevildo (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

People often ask this because they want to cite an article. If that's the case then see Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Trying to find poem

It's a classic piece, about children who wake up and are surprised by the clarity of the day since it's the first day of snow. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I found lots of wonderful stuff like Snow Day by Billy Collins and Only Snow by Allan Ahlberg, however the only "classic" one was London Snow by Robert Bridges, but it doesn't really seem to fit the bill. Alansplodge (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably not it; not even a poem as such. But tales of children and seasons changing and snow remind me of Oscar Wilde's story The Selfish Giant. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope, nope, but nice links. It was something more 18th - 19th century... OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Got to be William Blake. Sounds like Songs of Innocence and of Experience. μηδείς (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

There's an awful lot of those - which one were you thinking of? Alansplodge (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

My collected works is in storage, unfortunately. But the imagery is perfect for Blake. I may be wrong in the specific case, but he's a good place to look. μηδείς (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

A search of Blake's poems for "snow" at www.poemhunter.com returns only four results, none are really relevant to the question. Alansplodge (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking something like "Goblin Market" by Christina Rossetti, but it's somewhat too dark for the OP's description. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I love Winter Morning by Ogden Nash but that doesn't fit your time frame. Have you tried various keyword combos in Bartleby, that's often good for Classics. You can restrict the search to "All Verse". I've tried "snow morning" and "snow woke" but am now out of time. 184.147.136.249 (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you call the set of ideas and theories that question the idea that a book can be 'about' something?

I came across this, and can't find it again - it's about questioning the idea that a book can have established meaning. i.e. 'You can't say that Brokeback Mountain is 'about' gay cowboys.' Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.127.14 (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

opinion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How about "arrogance"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Haven't you been following the conversation at Talk, Mr B Bugs? One of the main themes is about people NOT piping up with unreferenced and/or inane comments just because they can. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Maybe you would like "elitism" or "nose-in-the-air" or whatever. But it's all the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC) To question the idea that a book can have established meaning is not necessarily arrogant or elitist. It may be, but that's purely a matter of opinion and therefore not the factual answer the OP was looking for. As Rhododendrites explains below, this line of thought is a respected aspect of literary theory. --Viennese Waltz 22:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC) I told you never to talk to me again. Erase your comment, or I'll do it for you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Are you serious Bugs? This isn't your own personal forum, and VW's comment is for everybody (specifically the OP), not just you. VW's comment is a helpful response to your useless dismissing of the issue in question. It might be a bit redundant with Jack's comment, but you didn't seem to have listened to him since you immediately responded with more of the same. Just in case you for some reason decide to delete VW: I'd like to agree that to question the idea that a book can have established meaning is not necessarily arrogant or elitist. It may be, but that's purely a matter of opinion and therefore not the factual answer the OP was looking for. As Rhododendrites explains below, this line of thought is a respected aspect of literary theory. Staecker (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a topic that's been tackled from a number of perspectives, but the most powerful and well-known critique of literary fixed meaning -- in my experience -- comes from post-structuralism. Two names that come to mind are Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida, the former known for his declaration that "the author is dead" and the latter for deconstruction. You could also take a quick look at structuralism, a body of work not wholly incompatible with the less well defined post-structuralism, and which would look at the meaning of a literary text as based on broader structures (e.g. cultural contexts, who is reading it, shifting common knowledge, when someone is reading it, etc.). --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The question is too open to have an answer. Good works have lots of interpretations and perspectives. Maybe they just wanted to say that. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Though it's getting off track from the original question, a response to the rather negative opinions expressed above. To call textual criticism/literary criticism/post-structuralism/postmodernism (as these terms relate to the present discussion) "arrogant" or "[pretentious]" is to miss the point entirely -- in fact that's what they're reacting to. The rational, modernist concept of meaning and knowledge was much more singular, authoritative, and elitist: expert authors writing works which contain truth and absolute meaning, which readers only then consume and absorb. Post-structuralists took to task anybody claiming such authority -- any group of people or identifiable location of concentrated, epistemically-derived power. It was the philosophical basis for a great deal of 20th and 21st century political work done in the name of feminism, human rights, racial equality, gay rights, and all sorts of causes working to subvert established power structures by primarily linguistic means. What Sokal successfully highlighted was the extent to which the strategy/philosophy/perspective/methodology became so successful and popular that it had begun to colonize all sorts of different disciplines, including science, but still published in the same kinds of journals (meaning peer review would be problematic). Sokal's beef was primarily about social constructivists of whatever brand making claims about science and the scientific enterprise without any solid scientific knowledge themselves (see, for example Laboratory Life -- not knowing science was sort of the point). While he certainly highlighted several problems that people became quite sensitive to thereafter, it's hardly a condemnation of a still growing set of ideas. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

For a good argument supporting "postmodernism is arrogant", see [15] by Noam Chomsky. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Rhododendrites has the proper answer here from a literary perspective. ... Still, arrogance works just fine. See Sokal hoax for people who hold just that opinion of post-modernist "theory". μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Literary criticism is a huge can of worms. You'll find every kind of analysis known to man there. Artistic intent vs. the audience interpretation is one of the big divides in any creative field. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

December 9

US troop deployments to Afghanistan

I skimmed Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan but wasn't able to figure out if troops are still being deployed to Afghanistan from the US. As the overall number of American troops in Afghanistan shrinks, will there still be some back and forth? --BDD (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, at least as of November 2013[16]. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

December 10

history

Empires have been built throughout history. Apart from those that are built on the basis of religion, what would be the real reasons for their expansion?
1.Would it more of material greed or more of noble visions of the leaders? For example to achieve unity amongst nations, to provide prosperity for humanity, etc?
2.To enhance the expansion, the conquerers have to enlist the conquered people as part of their army. How would they be sure of the loyalty of the soldiers?
3.In the particular case of the ransack of Baghdad, the Mongols basically destroyed the city and its people. What much benefits would be a destroyed city to the Mongols? Also the actions would bring much hatred and enmity amongst the survivors. Would it not be much better to only attack the vital parts of the city? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.139.102.6 (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Please ask one question at a time, and do so without forcing respondents to agree with questionable premises of yours, such as the notion that unity amongst nations (Ba'ath party, Soviet Socialist Republic) is an inherently "noble" thing. μηδείς (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

On 161.139.102.6's last point, the first generation or two of Mongol conquerors were more interested in having wide pasturelands to support large herds of their horses than they were in having extensive agricultural peasant populations, or large cities which depended for their existence on extensive agricultural peasant populations. They wanted to preserve enough "civilization" to make certain items which the nomads couldn't make for themselves, but beyond that they didn't necessarily care too much about the city-dwellers and peasants (or how they were to be fed when irrigation works were disrupted and former crop-growing land became pasture). AnonMoos (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you should answer these questions thus:

Firstly, define the differing types of empire: spiritual, temporal, and cultural. Clearly, you are asking about temporal (or territorial) empires, but there are also religious empires, such as, for example, the Roman Catholic church ('the kingdom of heaven'), you can bring in Stalin's question about how many divisions the Pope has, and cultural empires, usually based on a common language, such as a lingua franca or English, or common ideology, such as democracy and human rights. For example, most English people feel that they have more in common with North Americans than they do with Europeans. Macaulay has some useful quotations.

The cultural side should not be underestimated; Poland, for example, emerged again after 2 centuries of obliteration and a German kulturkampf.

The establishment of a territorial empire seems to me to require two things; firstly, a technological, political, organisational, or other strategic advantage over the inhabitants of the country to be conquered. Examples: (1) the line: 'Whatever happens we have got, the Maxim gun, and they have not'; (2) compare Bismark's establishment of the German Empire; (3) Gustavus Adolphus and the military revolution, Shaka Zulu; (4) as an example of another strategic advantage, we could say smallpox, in the case of the British versus American Indians, or the horse in relation to the Aztecs: see Guns, Germs, and Steel. Secondly, a reason for actually bothering to undertake the expensive business of conquering your neighbour: usually greed and opportunity: eg. Caesar's conquest of Gaul, which yielded huge numbers of slaves and advanced his own political ambitions; Gibbon (chapter 1 of Decline and Fall) states that the reason for invading Britain was: The proximity of its situation to the coast of Gaul seemed to invite their arms; the pleasing though doubtful intelligence of a pearl fishery, attracted their avarice. General Napier referred to the conquest of the Sindh as 'If this was a piece of rascality, it was a noble piece of rascality!'; the need to protect the borders of your own empire by constantly pushing forward: the First Afghan War, the Zulu War, the Fashoda Incident, which ultimately leads to Imperial overreach.

Tacitus puts a famously sympathetic quotation into the mouths of the Britons about Rome: Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant (To rape, kill, and steal, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.)

Occasionally two expanding empires meet: the Romans and the Carthaginians, Carthago delenda est, the British and the Dutch, in the Anglo-Dutch wars. Neither will give way.

Having said that, because an empire requires administration, there is often [sic. compare and contrast the Roman and British African Empires with those of Belgium or Germany] some degree of internal peace, the establishment and legal protection of property rights, standardisation of law (Roman Law, Common Law, Code Napoleon - Saint Paul's appeal to Caesar) and religion, and the gradual development of the economy, usually by roads (especially the Romans) and railways (especially the British). The more enlightened empires believe, or at least pay lip service to, the civilising mission, 'taking up the white man's burden'. The less enlightened empires simply exterminate the opposition: compare the treatment of the plains Indians in Canada and America, for example, and see also Holodomor and the Holocaust.

In respect of your second question, the usual way is to separate the levies raised from the subject people from their own country; thus, the Romans garrisoned Hadrian's Wall with Syrians, and the British sent sepoys to Africa. Over the longer term, an empire would probably hope that cultural assimilation and integration would ensure loyalty to the imperial ideal rather than nationalist stirrings, per Macaulay's Minute on Indian Education. See also Tacitus: Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis asset (Step by step they [the ancient Britons] were led to things which dispose to vice, the lounge, the bath, the elegant banquet. All this in their ignorance they called civilisation, when it was but a part of their servitude.) An interesting example is the British use of Highland regiments: less than 15 years after the '45, Simon Fraser's highlanders won the Battle of the Plains of Abraham.

However, the loyalty of the subject peoples is always to weak spot of an empire: vide. the Auld Alliance, the aid given to Cortes and Pissaro, and various nationalists forming 'legions' or 'free armies' during the world wars.

In respect of your third question, many empires are based on extermination; even the British managed to exterminate the Tasmanian aborigines. It was, in any case, a standard term of ancient and medieval warfare to offer your opponent terms of either surrender or extermination: Siege of Harfleur. Subsequent empires have also offered expulsion: see Psalm 137/ Babylonian exile; and the expulsion of the Acadians. It isn't that long ago that the British were carpet-bombing German cities and the the Americans were atom-bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima; the basic rationale, of destroying the enemy's manufacturing assets, and thus reducing his continuing ability to wage war; creating a deliberate civilian catastrophe to force your enemy to divert military and economic assets in order to protect his civilian population and assets; and to weaken the will to resist, remain as valid then as now. 86.183.79.28 (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that you will get better answers if you pose each question separately. I personally don't have time or energy to take on all of your questions, at least not at once. Marco polo (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Division of freedom

Does anyone know who spawned the theoretical split between "person freedom" and "economic freedom"? Farthest back I got is Roger Nash Baldwin. — Melab±1 ☎ 05:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I linkified his name, and would think Rousseau's "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains" would be the obvious candidate. μηδείς (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a really interesting history of ideas question. I too am interested in a more definitive answer. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I want a critical analysis of different poems of English literature

I want a critical analysis of different poems of English literature. Is there any help for me? first of all, I want a critical analysis of "The Hollow Men" by T.S.Eliot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.55.93.181 (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I have added a header for the request. μηδείς (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you read The Hollow Men and T. S. Eliot? μηδείς See our guidelines above: "The reference desk is not a service that will do homework for others" (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of critical analyses out there. Here are some. 184.147.136.249 (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Any good recent UFO encyclopedia?

Good day, I'm doing some background research on UFOs and aliens, before analysing alien literature.

The last good (thoroughly researched and unbias) UFO encyclopedia I "encountered" was Fifty years of UFOs : from distant sightings to close encounters by John and Anne Spencer. And that was from 1947 to 1997: from the mere dots in the sky in the post-war era to the more scientific paranoia and alternative spirituality in the 1990s. It was mostly written from an American (military, technology) and British (sacred, mystical, historic) perspective, but it also covered Soviet, French, Spanish and some Brazilian encounters.

And here's the problem.

What happened the past 16 years? It seems to me since the dawn of the millennium interest slowly faded and then came to an end.

Two questions:

1. Is there any new "good" recent UFO encyclopedia? Preferably from the 2010s?

2. Did the mass media consumers' interest merely swap the "clinical", "New Age", "sterile", "unexplained" and more "futuristic" (something will happen) to something much more of a "present", "Gothic", "decaying" and "urban" hype, such as vampires and zombies (especially the latter)? Does it concern postmodernism (e.g. reviving or emphasising the different myth(s) in the modern world) or has it to do with the ever more new shifting conspiracy theories? Suidpunt (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that interest in, and mention of, UFOs seems to have declined. As far as why, perhaps it has to do with movies about UFOs. I considered 2001: A Space Odyssey and Close Encounters of the Third Kind to be good UFO movies, which peaked everyone's interest. On the other hand, more recent UFO movies, like Signs, just seem silly (those aliens were water soluble, like the Wicked Witch of the West, and seemed to lack any powerful weapons). So, fewer people would take UFOs seriously after bad UFO movies like that.

And note that vampires and werewolves are "sexier" than little green men, and sex sells, so that's why we get such an overdose of those lately, and a dearth of aliens.

There also seems to be a larger trend in movies away from true science fiction (things which may actually be possible, like UFOs) and more towards fantasy (magic, etc.). StuRat (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Search google for 'signs demons' (without the quotes), for a theory that turns the movie from having a terrible plot to merely being badly executed. There are also theories that monster movies reflect the fears of society as a whole, so when the western world feared a foreign power about which not much was known, we had aliens (and as they started to open up, we had nicer aliens). When the western world starts fearing home grown terrorists who could look like any of us, we get vampires and zombies, who are normal people changed into monsters (for zombies in particular, the popularity also depends on who is president of the US [17]). MChesterMC (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It could also connect with the fact that news coverage of UFOs seems to have dropped to zero. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey is a UFO movie?? There isn't a single UFO in the entire movie. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The Star Child's bubble could be considered a UFO. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

While there were long notions of aliens travelling space, the UFO craze started as a nutty cover story for the Roswell UFO incident. It was the aura of government authority behind the idea that got it going, and having citizens report unknown aircraft obviously had some appeal during the Cold War going forward (Project Blue Book). Eventually though, people became more canny (or perhaps they lost a habit of silence learned during the war) and started to discuss these things more openly as secret aircraft. Alien abductions became more plausible when viewed as humans abducting and drugging people.

I don't think that realistic science fiction has really gone away - though it was never really that large a segment of literature - it's just that there are other ways for aliens to arrive. Wnt (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• StuRat's hit the stake on the head; the rise of vampires and werewolves (!) has distracted the public, and, weakened, the last of the aliens have been taken out by zombies. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)