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

March 5

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse

close soapboxing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Alright, according to the article, some US military groups gave the media the pictures of abused prisoners. The question is where did they get the pictures in the first place? The guards, who committed the crime, took the pictures themselves right? Are the guards stupid or what? Why would they give the pictures to someone else to release it? Or why would they give the pictures to someone at all. Don't the guards know if people see it then they will be outraged? When the US military was investigating the guards, they could have hidden the pictures somewhere or delete it with ease. It puzzles me how can the media get the hold of those sick-messed up pictures. 75.168.125.23 (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Why did they photograph their deeds? For the same reason that countless civilian idiots film their bad behaviors and post them on youtube, sometimes leading to arrests and convictions. Note that it's not just Abu Ghraib, as various photographic evidence of other bad behaviors by some soldiers has surfaced from time to time. As far as destroying them, believe it or not there are people in the military with a sense of integrity and ethics. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Ok, I get the parts where some people are simply idiots. However, I don't get this part "As far as destroying them, believe it or not there are people in the military with a sense of integrity and ethics." If they have integrity and ethnics then why did they commit the abuse then took the pictures in the first place? They have integrity to not destroy the picture, yet committed a terrible crime? Seems contradicting to me.75.168.125.23 (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC) I'm not saying it's the same people. Keep in mind that the reason people film their misdeeds is to laugh and joke about them later. And sometimes they make copies of them. And the more copies are floating around, the greater the chance of the wrong person (so to speak) getting hold of them and blowing the whistle. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC) I see. Pretty much to sum up my answer. There are some idiots who took pictures of their terrible acts and thought it's funny then made copies and spread them around. No wonder how eventually the media will get the hold of those pictures or films.75.168.125.23 (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Now that you have given us your answer I am closing this. We don't discuss the state of mind of living people, we give references. If you have a request for a reference, do so outside the hat. μηδείς (talk) 05:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC) I think you should refer to the original article and related stories. My guess: people coming from the U.S. have been indoctrinated with a hypothetical view of the world where all men are created equal, or at least all white men. They think something is either against the law, or else it's a "right". So if soldiers see prisoners routinely being humiliated and tortured by agents of civilian spy agencies, private contractors, and anyone else who comes by, their instinct isn't to think that this is something totally illegal for them only. (Nowadays, with the television networks awash with programs about how you could build tanks and machine guns and blow up bombs if only you were rich and had the license, this indoctrination may gradually be fading) But assuming one law for all, a person could think, these are criminals and this is their punishment and nobody cares. And who would have imagined that Lynndie England would end up regarded as the worst criminal in this affair, even as the whole country was abuzz with detainees being in agony from water boarding, or having dogs lick peanut butter off their genitals, etc. Of course, this also indicates a much larger number of people who nonetheless had the foresight not to take pictures. Wnt (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

musical effect

There's something I first noticed in some orchestral performances but it also happens a lot in marches. Basically at some cadences the players end the measure by playing a little louder and then muffling the last note rather abruptly, giving a "tump" sound if that makes any sense. When I listened to classical radio stations I could often tell when Lorin Maazel was conducting even if I didn't know what music it was, because he did that all the time. I think it's supposed to show that the conductor has good control of the orchestra, by getting everyone to stop at the same time. But I found the effect kind of annoying.

My question: is there a name for what I'm describing? Is it written into the score? (I doubt this, since it's much more noticable in some performances than others). Is there any literature on what mood effect it's supposed to have, when to use it, etc.?

Thanks.

70.36.142.114 (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's called a "stinger" in musical terms. We don't have a specific article about it, but it is mentioned briefly in one line near the bottom of Stinger (disambiguation). --Jayron32 10:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I did find it at Sting (musical phrase). Also see Stab (music) and Orchestra hit. --Jayron32 10:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, unfortunately none of those are what I mean though. I'm just referring to a style of musical phrasing where (some) notes are accented in a drum-like way. I'll see if I can find some examples in the non-Flashwall parts of Youtube. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You can listen to various examples of cadences at that article. Maybe one will ring a bell. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:32, March 6, 2014 (UTC)

Medieval Warfare. The Impact of Arrows vs Armour ?

I've always found it very silly when watching popular movies, how men-at-arms run around with armour, -usually with chain-mail, occasionally with full steel-plate- and yet enemy arrows always pierce them as if they are running around naked and with no protection whatsoever. Then what's the point of wearing armour? I'm thinking that obviously this is highly unrealistic and nothing close to reality, but I'm left with this question; how well did arrows actually work against soldiers in chain-mail?

Did it penetrate the chains at all to pierce flesh and cause some damage, or did it not have much impact at all? When it comes to full-plate I'm not even gonna ask, because surely it did not penetrate a steel-plate piece of armor. I might be willing to believe that crossbow-bolts could penetrate chain-mail and *maybe* even steel-plate, but I don't believe bow and arrows could . So surely if you were to be a successful archer you had to hit the weak spots; around the neck, armpits, groins and even the face. Any area left unprotected really..

Now that I'm already going on about this subject I might as well throw in that swords, axes, etc. were definitely far less effective against armour as well than what is depicted in movies. So the same question applies here; how much of an effect against armour did it really have? Once again, one really had to find the weak and unprotected areas I should think, to effectively put one's enemy down. Which is surely why the war-hammer eventually became so popular in the late middle-ages, since its blunt head would cause bludgeoning-damage even through armour, and its spiked head would penetrate armour much better than any other weapon, if the weapon was swung with full force.

So what do you think?

I'm just speculating really, and I'm not pretending to know any of these things for certain. I just like history, and right now I'm wondering about these things

18:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)109.247.62.59 (talk)

Lots of interesting information at English longbow. Mikenorton (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Battle of Agincourt is famous for lightly clad English longbowmen being able to defeat the heavily armored French at a distance because the didn't have to engage closely, and the bow allowed shooting an arrow with enough momentum (they sometimes drew the bows with their legs) to pierce the French armor. Until then short bows were less effective, and once the forces closed armor gave advantage against blades in close quarters. μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

See bodkin point. Wnt (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, those were some good links you gave me. I think it's fair to say that English Longbowmen and Battle of Agincourt was something else than a "normal" bow however - but a good thing you brought it up anyway. It certainly must have had a devastating effect indeed. 'Bodkin point' also made for a good read. So thnx 109.247.62.59 (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Crossbows were also employed against armor. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 03:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It also helps to remember that armoured, sword-bearing, and ideally mounted knights were a relatively small part of any medieval army. They looked the coolest and that's why we remember them, but an army was mostly foot soldiers, who had much less armour, if they had any at all. A mass of archers would be shooting at them, rather than at the knights specifically. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Also good to remember when arrows rained, they often poured. A typical trained archer doesn't have much chance at hitting a chink with each shot, but when they're coming in volleys, the chance of a blind squirrel catching your nut gets discouragingly higher and gravity isn't your friend. But of course, not like movie strength.

Another thing movies make us forget is that you don't need the flashy sniper shot through the eyeball, and that arrows are often unintentionally poisonous. A good scratch can be enough, depending on which foreign soils and fluids happen to mix in till whenever you can take your clunky suit off and wash. If you lived before infection was common knowledge (like most of us), you might never clean it, and figure you're just dying from bad luck. In a long siege, those little pricks add up.

A good steel axe can go through most good steel armour, provided you swing it befitting a guy who brings an axe to war. But unless you're fictional, the second shot is never going to be as sharp or strong. And you're going to have to pull that axe back out of the armour. It won't split anyone in half. Good for duels, too cumbersome for war. Badass way to go out in a movie. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:44, March 6, 2014 (UTC)

You may be interested in some American research; English Longbow Testing against various armor: circa 1400, by Matheus Bane, January 2006. Alansplodge (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't underestimate the ability of the ancients to deal with wounds - Dioscorides, whose work was well known for the past two millennia, wrote of many different herbs useful for preventing or fighting infection, some of which have some evidence to support them. [1] Wnt (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't deny there were some good doctors, or think people are generally more intelligent now. But standardization, collaboration and access to data have come a long way for wisdom. All the good work in the world is for naught if the surgeon assigned you hasn't heard of it. Then, even the most intelligent people have to experiment, piecing together their personal experiences to decide whether trepanning, toxic root or prayer seems most appropriate for your seizures. Science has broken a lot of eggs to make those revolutionary omelettes. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, March 7, 2014 (UTC)

It's true. But my feeling is that (a) I've seen many totally false characterizations of old medical practice -- for example, it was popular to say that in the Civil War there was no anaesthesia because ether wasn't being used, but the physicians had ready resort to copious amounts of opium; (b) where there were the most war casualties, the best doctors probably tended to win out; and (c) the witch-hunts of medieval times probably greatly reduced the average medical knowledge and practice from what was before and after. Wnt (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean -- large-scale witch hunts were much more of a Renaissance phenomenon than Medieval, and I don't know that they led to any great diminution of medical knowledge... AnonMoos (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

They're still burning books in the North to stay warm (via petroleum, naturally). And "modern medicine" seems to have battle-hardened about as many diseases as it's eradicated or tamed. Maybe too much data being shared, now. Intelligent people are still experimenting and finding contradictory conclusions. All reasons we shouldn't imagine medical progress as an upward line on a chart. More like a bubbling, rippling cauldron.

Speaking of experiments and getting back on topic, I hit a filing cabinet with a maul axe yesterday, and can confirm you don't want to wear something like that. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:14, March 8, 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

1) Armor was worn by the rich and powerful, while common soldiers had none. As such, armor was as much about showing your status as it was about protection.

2) All armor provides some degree of protection, from glancing blows, etc. Even the steel helmets worn in WW2 provided some protection to the wearer from bullets and shrapnel.

3) The question then, is if this added protection was worth the cost in mobility, speed, and money (which could be spent on other forms of protection, like digging massive trenches).

4) The effectiveness of armor gradually was reduced as the longbow, crossbow, and then firearms appeared on the battlefield and became common. Eventually armor became a liability rather than an asset.

5) Chivalry may also have made an impact, as being in armor would make you an obvious target as a leader, unless there was a code of honor preventing such attacks. So, where that code was observed, and "high value targets" were more likely to be captured alive and then ransomed back, armor was less of a liability. StuRat (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

March 6

Do some critical theorists disagree with critical pedagogy?

Critical pedagogy relies on the framework of the critical theory; that is, freedom could not be associated with any organized societies, for freedom is the primacy of the individual. Critical pedagogy, however, appears to forget the central tenet of critical theory, because “domesticating” the term “critical” in organized education implicitly invalidates the meaning of the notion critical. In other words, according to Pais, “its meaning can be lost when inserted in social frames (like schools) that aim not at emancipation but reproduction”. So it makes sense to ask if there are other more known critical theorists who object to critical pedagogy. Do some critical theorists disagree with critical pedagogy, especially when critical pedagogy applies critical theory in math and science formal education?49.144.216.169 (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a premiss in "critical theory", which, like "philosophy" is just a generic term, in this case typically for theoretical models in the humanities. The debate about socially critical forms of pedagogy dates back to the disputes over Louis Althusser's theories of ISAs and RSAs. Paul B (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Is the European American population still growing?

2. Is the number of middle and upper class residents of First World countries still growing?

3. What about by natural increase, without needing the help of upward mobility or international migration?

4. and 5. Same questions, but for the US.

Thanks. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't answer your questions directly, but you may find Demographic-economic paradox to be an interesting read. --Jayron32 10:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The title of your question, about European Americans, is specific to the United States. Your specific questions are somewhat impossible to answer, because there is no generally agreed bottom cut-off point for the middle class. In fact, there is no general agreement on the meaning of the term middle class. On the other hand, the question in your title can be answered, if we assume that the category "European American" is equivalent to the category "white" as used by the U.S. Census Bureau. If it is, then according to this table, the answer to the question in your title is no, as of 2008. As of that year (the most recent for which I could find data), the rate of natural increase for white Americans is slightly below the natural replacement rate, which means that, not counting net immigration, the native-born white population of the United States is very slowly shrinking. Marco polo (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A children's book series

There was this historical mystery book series for children whose name I'm forgetting. It has four child protagonists. There were also many installments, more than 30 I think. Ring any bells? --Yashowardhani (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If you can remember any other details, those would help. In particular, can you remember when in history the stories happened, where they were set, and the names/genders of the children? RomanSpa (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The_Famous_Five_(series)? 196.214.78.114 (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't be mislead by the title, it was four children and a dog. Alansplodge (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If we're going with Enid Blyton there were four child protagonists in The Adventure Series, but only 8 books were written. --Dweller (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Magic Tree House series? Lots of books, but only 2 protagonists. --Jayron32 13:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think there were four child protagonists, or maybe five. There were many books, set in different countries and different time periods. Sounds weird, but one time I was really fascinated with them and wanted to read them. I also think the books were for older audience than Enid Blyton. They had very interesting historical contexts, see. I really wish I could remember more details but that's all I have.--Yashowardhani (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

History Mysteries? --Viennese Waltz 14:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Or perhaps The Roman Mysteries, which has four protagonists but the time period doesn't vary much. --Viennese Waltz 15:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

That's it! Thanks a lot. I probably got confused by some other book about that varying time period thing (I'm very forgetful). Thanks again! --Yashowardhani (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Do the Amish allow paintings instead of photography?

It is known that the Amish doesn't allow photography. Do they allow paintings? Can "Englishers" paint portraits of the Amish, or is that a sin too? 140.254.227.87 (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There are many variations in Amish traditions. "Old order" Amish use horse-drawn buggies, but are allowed to use gas or diesel powered tools. "New order" Amish can drive cars, as long as they are black. Not all Amish disallow photography. Some congregations frown upon the use of mirrors, while others don't. So-- I'm sure at least some Amish allow painted portraits, but some may well not. Also, note that many plain people are not Amish, though sometimes "Amish" is used incorrectly as a catch-all. See Amish, Subgroups_of_Amish, Amish_(disambiguation). True Old Order Amish are increasingly rare. There tends to be "creep", wherein children raised in one sect tend to move to more liberal sects as they age. Sorry there is no easy answer, but there is a lot of complexity in this question. If you really mean one specific denomination, I might be able to find a specific reference. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Tḧe problem with Amish + photos is that posing for them is an act of pride, I doubt it's any better to let someone paint a portrait of you. However, they are less restrictive to unposed pictures, in a natural setting. There are plenty of pictures and videos of Amish that corroborate that's possible to do that. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Some Amish, at least, don't mind if outsiders take pictures (for outsiders' use) of Amish people doing everyday activities. However, I think most Amish would object to sitting for "portraits" of any kind because doing so is an act of vanity at odds with the humility expected in their society. I think most Amish would object even more to displaying portraits of themselves, whether photographed or painted, because that shows even more vanity and immodesty than allowing the portrait to be made. Marco polo (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Name for Middle-class in power?

How do you call it when the middle class is in power? Middleclasscraty? It wouldn't be a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, but more like a dictatorship of the petit bourguesie. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There is "mesocracy". ---Sluzzelin talk 18:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a link to an economist who coined the term mediocracy. --Jayron32 01:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Who are the middle class in capitalism? Management: managerialism Taylorism Fordism bureaucracy nomenklatura. A technical elite: technocracy professional-managerial class. The petitsbourgeois: populism free-silver. Answer me who the middle class is and you might get a meaningful answer. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Proudhonism for a society where everyone is petty bourgeois. Yeoman democracy for a 20th century version of it (Piore and Sabel, The Second Industrial Divide). Alain Lipietz said it equated to "woman slavery". Itsmejudith (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Movement/organization advocating people to not report their race/ethnicity

I remember some years ago at a movie theater, there was a pre-trailer ad for some group that advocated for people to always put "don't wish to answer" or similar on any survey which asks for their race/ethnicity. Then it had some URL to go to for more information. Does anybody remember this and is this movement still going? -- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You didn't specify a country, but in the U.S. Michele Bachmann and some others advocated for that in 2010, even though the U.S. census has been collecting such information every 10 years since 1790... AnonMoos (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Bachmann would support it automatically makes it suspect. But in general, what would be the reasoning behind that idea? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the idea was to do it as a protest against collecting racial and ethnic statistics, and/or move towards a post-racial society. And, yes, it was in the US.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The OP asked to identify the movement, not for our opinion on the movement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It seems as a well-meant, but ill-conceived movement, if they meant to not disclose the information not even in the census. Knowing about the income, distribution, age, education (and so on) of different ethnic groups can be invaluable soemtimes. A different thing would be to be asked at a job interview (which I have never seen, BTW). OsmanRF34 (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Yes, but some people have good reason to be suspicious of the invaluable uses ethnicity data will be put to. As a hypothetical, if the census data on populations is used to decide distribution of education resources, and you are concerned about institutional racism in the provision of education, then you might feel that encouraging people not to report their ethnicity will lead to more equitable provision of education. 86.161.109.226 (talk) 06:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Always treat everyone equally, and race becomes irrelevant, as it should be. This sounds like a good movement. HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Unfortunately, that approach fails to detect when a particular grouping is being disadvantaged in some way, or not being reached by a service of some kind. That is the raison d'être of ethnic monitoring. Alansplodge (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Additionally, it is beyond insulting to say "race is irrelevant", which means "my culture is the only one that matters, so long as you abandon your culture and follow mine, I acknowledge you, however, I'm going to ignore anything that isn't my culture" Instead, race and other cultural groups should be recognized and accepted on their own terms. Other cultures are not irrelevant to the people that live in them. They are very relevant to them. --Jayron32 13:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC) I think you are mixing race with culture and ethnicity. I don't think anyone would argue that culture or ethnicity are irellevant, but race really should be. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Race is a cultural/ethnic concept. Unless you mean "skin color", and insofar as people from an ethnicity share can often share similar skin colors, such factors certainly play a role in cultural and ethnic identity, so cannot be ignored as though they didn't. --Jayron32 13:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC) All of this is debate, and none of it helps in answering the OP's question. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

March 7

Writers born in and writers who lived in Louisiana

Who were the well-known writers that were born in Louisiana? Who were the well-known writers that lived in Louisiana? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.148.80 (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

See Category:Writers from Louisiana. --Jayron32 01:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That category is a mish-mash, including a lot of names of persons who are only marginally writers, or only marginally from Louisiana. For example, Katherine Ann Porter is usually associated with Texas, not Louisiana, and Robert Penn Warren with Tennessee, even if his most famous novel is set in Louisiana; Elmore Leonard was born in New Orleans, but his most famous books are set in Detroit, MI. Among those whose connection to the state are not under question, most famous are (in alphabetical order) Arna Bontemps, Truman Capote, Andre Dubus, Ernest J. Gaines, Shirley Ann Grau, Walker Percy, Anne Rice, John Kennedy Toole and Tennessee Williams. --Xuxl (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

website that compares the languages Turkic

Is there a website that shows a sentence in English and then translates into different Turkic languages like Turkish, Azeri, Qashqai, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Turkmen and Tatar and other existing Turkic languages like for example "I am black", "I am twenty-three years old" and etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.148.80 (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

See the answers given to three parallel questions on the Language desk. —Tamfang (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Grand Budapest Hotel

There are presently numerous press items quoting film director Wes Anderson about the influence on "Grand Budapest Hotel" of the 1920s and '30s Viennese world of playwright and author Stefan Zweig. Which of the author's works might we read for some background, in advance of seeing the film that's due to open soon (and probably close soon after) in local theatres? -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Beware of Pity and The World of Yesterday are mentioned in this newspaper article. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Why can Christians only claim affiliation to one church?

Some Christians claim they are Methodist. Some Christians claim they are Catholic. Some Christians claim they are Orthodox. Some Christians claim they are Lutheran. Some Christians claim they are Quaker. Some Christians claim they are Amish. Et cetera. Why are they mutually exclusive? What if a person only takes part of the teachings from one denomination (i.e. the Amish teaching that following the Bible does not guarantee salvation and weighty emphasis on humility and simplicity) and only takes part of the teachings from another denomination (i.e. Lutheranism but only four Solae, because the person may prefer the Roman Catholic view of prima scriptura). 140.254.226.194 (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

People can claim whatever affiliation they want. Your beliefs are your own, whatever anyone else's opinion. For acceptance into these individual denominations, however, you usually need to demonstrate your loyalty to it, sometimes by a simple statement or profession of faith, sometimes by elaborate ritual like baptism. Sometimes the denomination will expressly forbid participation in another. If you are an "independent" worshiper or believer (that is, you believe in God and Jesus but don't go to church), you can pretty much do whatever you want. Mingmingla (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict] In terms of private belief, there is no reason why a Christian can't hold beliefs from different strains of Christianity, and no doubt some Christians do this. In terms of church membership, however, a person cannot, for example, belong to the Roman Catholic church without either accepting the church's dogma in its entirety or risking a charge of heresy and excommunication. Some Orthodox and Protestant churches impose similar requirements of doctrinal adherence. In some Protestant churches, it might be possible to adhere to beliefs from other Christian traditions without a risk of expulsion, but even then, if a person were to share those heterodox beliefs with their pastor, the pastor might impose pressure on the congregant to conform, since one of the premises of Christian church membership and worship in most Christian churches is adherence to a shared body of beliefs. The main exceptions, to my knowledge, are Quakers and Unitarians, who welcome people with a wide range of beliefs. (Not all Unitarians, however, consider themselves Christian, and some Christians consider all Unitarians non-Christian.) Marco polo (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's not merely Christianity. In Islam, if you're Sunni, you're not Shia, and vice-versa. In Judaism, if you're Reform, you're not Orthodox or Conservative (and if you're Orthodox, you may or may not be Hasidic). Buddhism and Hinduism are a bit more open, but what's true and acceptable for the Nyingmapa will get you thrown out of the Gelugpa, and possibly prompt a Zen school to have a restraining order put on you; and a California Krishna Consciousness commune would still call the police if they saw a practicing Aghori.

Sometimes, the differences are philosophical ones that cannot be reconciled. Most Reformed Churches teach Calvinist predestination and symbolic interpretation of Communion as official doctrines, both of which simply cannot be reconciled with the Catholic Church's teachings on Thomistic free will and Transubstantiation.

Sometimes, the differences are a matter of practice. I like stain glass windows in a sanctuary, maybe some icons and even the occasional statue, but some other Christians think all that's heathen, and want bare walls in their church. My granddad's church has their "worship center" (not a sanctuary, by their own admission) set up like a concert hall, which some might regard as modernist materialism, letting the corporate media drown out the message so that people worship the media rather than who the message points to.

There are some denominations that are generally open to cross-denominational members. The Baptist church I grew up in had a number of members who identified as Episcopalians, Methodists, and I think a few Presbyterians. The local Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) wouldn't mind at all if I joined and continued to refer to myself as a "Zen Baptist Humanist." Ian.thomson (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Why won't they give me a Whopper when I eat at McDonald's? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out, one can claim any belief. Pi in Life_of_Pi is an adherent of three religions. Strictly speaking, one can claim to be an adherent of any church too. The problem here is only whether or not those churches will claim to accept YOU into their flock. The main reason why one church would not accept you to be part of another church would be if that church denies the teachings of your church. For example, the word "protestant" comes from "protesting against the catholic church". Therefore, the catholic church has very specific rules against accepting anyone to also be protestant. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Square peg, round hole. "Jesus is the only incarnation of God", "Jesus is in no way divine, but only a good man", and "Jesus may have been one of many avatars of Vishnu" are all rather opposing views. About the only way to confuse thing more would be to throw in the Christ myth theory. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Confucianism, Taoism, Chinese Mahayana Buddhism and Shintoism aren't mentioned here. Or the syncretism of African religions and Neo-Pentecostalism. 140.254.226.194 (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned Zen, earlier, which started off as the Chan school in China, and is a branch of Mahayana. Many of the Chinese Buddhist schools were quite distinct from the Tibetan Mahayana Buddhist schools, rejecting a great deal of tantra and placing more emphasis on logic. Taoism had its own apocalyptic works, such as Nuqing Guilu, which was quite clear that Taoism is the one true religion and other religions are demon worship; and this attitude allowed it to become a driving force behind the Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution. Whether or not Confucianism is classified as a religion or as a philosophy is a matter of debate, even among Confucians. Mainstream Shinto does differentiate itself from offshoots such as Tenrikyo. Folk religions, regardless of region, can be syncretist, but usually borrow from more organized religions that would not encourage such mixture. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I see only a few search returns for the Nuqing Guilu, but it sounds like an interesting work - do you know a link for it? I think there is a big contradiction in our modern-day attitude of saying that memes are real but demons are not, so a work that purports to offer methods of fighting demons seems worthy of a glance. Wnt (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Many churches have membership. That is you sign up and and are on the books of one particular congregation of one particular denomination. To become a member you have to agree to certain doctrinal and sometimes financial obligations and as a member you gain certain privileges (voting, financial, etc.) If you move, you need request your membership be transferred to another congegration. If that new congregation is in another denomination, there may be extra steps to have your membership accepted. In these churches you can only be a member of one denomination so would only ever identify yourself as one type of Christian. Rmhermen (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• To give an example, rather than generalities. A Roman Catholic can celebrate full mass with communion and so forth at any Catholic church in communion with the pope: Assyrian {Chaldean} Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, etc. He can attend any Christian service he likes, but he can't participate in the sacraments (no communion) or make any statement of faith like their version of the Nicene Creed that contradicts the Catholic Church. I.e., they should mostly stand silent. 1f Catholicism is attacked they shouldn't attend. Attending Jewish ceremonies is difficult. Jews have an area for gentiles to observe. The Birkat haMinim is offensive to Christians, and a reason not to attend if recited. (Hearing it caused a woman I know to break of an engagement.) Attending Hindu or Muslim ceremonies, for example, would be very problematic--you'd have to ask your Bishop, who'll want to know if you'd be condoning an attack on the church (e.g., Islam) or participating in forbidden worship (e.g., Hindu). As for affiliation, Catholics are required to belong to a local parish church (of their Father's denomination if the differ in rites), and the parish church will necessarily be of one denomination/rite within Catholicism. μηδείς (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

For "Assyrian Catholic", do you mean Assyrian Church of the East? 140.254.227.86 (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

From the article: "the modern Assyrian Church of the East is not in communion with any other churches, either Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Catholic."

I assume Medeis was referring to the East Syrian Rite, maybe the Chaldean Catholic Church. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

+1

Come on, people, I was confirmed at baptism, and baptized as a swaddling, as is cromulent in the Byzantine rite. My father's the one who was risen by West Catholic Jesuits, he knows this stuff. μηδείς (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Borrowing against a 401K

Resolved

I've heard it said that when you borrow against a 401K that you're paying yourself the interest. Can someone explain that to me? Dismas|^(talk) 16:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

When you borrow from a 401k, you are required to repay the loan with interest. Since you will collect any amounts you repay after retirement, you are in fact paying interest to yourself. Marco polo (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The bank doesn't take any of that for providing the loan? Dismas|^(talk) 17:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The bank isn't providing any money. You are drawing against your deposits. There may be fees involved.[2] Rmhermen (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This is one of those questions we can't answer because of the legal implications involved. Ask a lawyer or your fund manager. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It can be answered and it was. I wasn't asking for myself but in more of a general sense which is just exactly what everyone but you seems to have read. Again. Dismas|^(talk) 20:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hawaii last survivor

Who was the last surviving person to have witness the Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii or were connected to Kingdom of Hawaii (last former citizens)?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That's actually an interesting question and one I am not sure actually has an answer. Because this pertains to who witnessed the overthrow or may have been alive to understand what was happening and survive longer than anyone else from that period, it may be nearly impossible to answer. Now, who was the last surviving person of note "involved" may be a little easier to answer but still very difficult because not everyone who may have been involved has been fully recognized. This period in history is very difficult to unearth but, I suppose one could simply look to all peoples listed in the numerous documents and see who was the last man or woman standing but still may not be truly accurate.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Parliament of USA?

Does the USA have a similar kind of parliament that pretty much all northern, western and central European countries do, among a lot of others? If not, what body performs the same function? How do USAn politics work compared to, say, Canadian, British, German, Swedish or Finnish politics? JIP | Talk 17:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

United States Congress. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

USA has a legislature, as do Canada, UK, etc. But USA's legislature is a congress, not a parliament. See also presidential system and parliamentary system. One key distinction (from the final link):

“ A parliamentary system is a system of democratic governance of a state in which the executive branch derives its democratic legitimacy from, and is held accountable to, the legislature (parliament); the executive and legislative branches are thus interconnected. In a parliamentary system, the head of state is normally a different person from the head of government. This is in contrast to a presidential system in a democracy, where the head of state often is also the head of government, and most importantly: the executive branch does not derive its democratic legitimacy from the legislature. ”

Does that clear it up? SemanticMantis (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It clears things up somewhat. It says that in a presidential system, the executive branch does not derive its democratic legitimacy from the legislature, and apparently isn't accountable to it either. I don't think it still means that the executive branch is free to dictate any laws it wants to just like that, right? At least the president himself can't do that. It's also interesting to see that apart from Mexico and a bunch of other North American countries (except Canada), the USA is pretty much the only fully presidential republic in what one would call the "western world". This is excluding South America, which is geographically in the western hemisphere. JIP | Talk 18:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As for how it works, since I haven't taken any civics courses on other nations, I'll just give an overview of how it's supposed to work:

Congress is divided into the the House of Representatives (one per so many people) and the Senate (two senators per state). Each election, people vote for a senator (every six years) and a representative (every two years). Pretty much any citizen can suggest a bill to either their representative or senator, who probably modifies it, and puts it before whichever house they belong to (representatives or the Senate). They argue about it, amend the bill to appease everyone, and then either pass it or drop it. It then goes to the other house (HoR to the Senate, and vice versa), where it's argued about and amended further, possibly killed, but maybe passed there. If there are substantial changes, it may be kicked back to the first house, until both sides agree on something. Then the President gets the chance to pass it or veto it (in which case Congress has to get a two-thirds majority to pass it instead of a regular majority). Then a citizen or group of citizens can go to court over the law (maybe because they were arrested under it, maybe because they sued the state). If the case gets to the Supreme court, they can declare it unconstitutional and illegal, thereby nullifying it (or at least preventing the law from being enforced).

Every four years, the President is elected, not directly by the people, but by the electoral college, which consists of Congress. There is a popular vote because many congresspersons do go with their constituents' will even if it's against party lines (e.g. a Republican may represent an area that voted Democrat, and he may put his vote in for the Democratic presidential candidate).

The President, pretty much at any time, can appoint judges (though there has to be some congressional approval). This usually doesn't happen unless one of them dies or steps down, though.

All this forms the system of checks and balances, i.e. congress, the President, and the Supreme court all have ways to stop the other branches of government from screwing up too badly.

This is under ideal conditions, and does not reflect the role lobbyists, special interest groups, career politicians, the media, Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the myth of voter fraud affect things.

As for how people can come to be elected into those offices, it's a complicated mess even under ideal descriptions. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That is not how the electoral college works. Electors are not U.S. Congressmen but party electors. See United States electoral college. Congress only gets involved when the electoral college can't make a choice. Rmhermen (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed "no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." (Article II section 1.) —Tamfang (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• The difference in the U.S. is that the U.S. has a clear Separation of powers which includes a series of "checks and balances" between the three branches of government. The U.S. government is organized into three branches:
  • Legislative Branch (Congress) passes laws by voting on legislation
  • Executive Branch (The Cabinet of the United States and the Federal Agencies headed by the President) is responsible for enacting the laws passed by Congress. That is, congress says what the U.S. government is to do, it is the executive's role to do it
  • Judicial Branch (the court system headed by the United States Supreme Court) interprets the law and enforces violations of it.
• Thus each branch has a narrowly defined role. There's often considerable bickering between branches, however, as to how the legal apparatus works. For example, by its role of Judicial review, the courts have the ability to invalidate a law which violates the Constitution of the United States. Courts do, at times, interpret the constitution different ways, sometimes confining their rulings to the explicit text, and other time basing their rulings on implied Constitutional principles like the right to privacy. This leads to accusations of "legislating from the bench", especially from Congress which doesn't like to have its laws invalidated. Likewise, though it is the executive branch's role to enact the laws that Congress passes, they have CONSIDERABLE leeway in enacting those laws, and they may at times alter or change the intent of a law (or even completely ignore it). So there's a constant tension between the branches as they negotiate their roles within the system. If you really want to know how the U.S. government is designed to work, the Federalist Papers really do a good job explaining and justifying and providing rationales for how the U.S. system was set up. --Jayron32 19:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

And of the Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 51 is probably the most important read to understand the basic set up of the U.S. federal government and how it works. --Jayron32 19:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it's the Executive Branch that enforces violations of the law. The Judicial Branch only ratifies them. —Tamfang (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The biggest difference, to my mind, is in the separation of power, which is much more pronounced in the US than in Sweden. In Sweden, for example, on votes on one color/flower/party, and that is it. The winning party gets seats in Parliament in accordance with the votes they get. The Prime minister is normally simply the party leader of the largest party. In effect, he holds relatively more power than the president, since he often is both the chief executive and leads the main party, and especially powerful if the party has more than 50 percent of the votes. In the US, the president has a lot less to say about which laws are passed, since the congress and senate are voted on separately. Even if congress, senate and president happen all to be of the same party and that party is in dominance, the US president can not get laws passed as easily as the Swedish Prime Minister can get laws passed in Parliament. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There is one small flaw in the above explanation: Sweden does not have a president, but a king. But if you substitute my own home country Finland for Sweden, then the above should apply to at least some degree. (There is even the difference that, to my understanding, the King of Sweden has no political power whatsoever, but is purely a ceremonial figurehead, whereas the President of Finland has some small traces of political power remaining.) JIP | Talk 19:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

So, according to my understanding, the congress is like the parliament in European countries, and the cabinet is like the government, and the president is like the president (but not like the King of Sweden, who doesn't get to actually decide anything). The judicial branch seems somewhat like the same in both systems. There are of course differences between what powers each branch actually holds, but I guess the overall analogy is like this. I, of course, am but a layman - I should ask my stepbrother, as he has currently a minor career in Finnish politics. JIP | Talk 20:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I am aware that we have a King here in Sweden, JIP, and that he is irrelevant to any discussion about our government. In Sweden, the Prime minister is the one with the power. The point that I am making is that in most cases, since the separation of power is weaker in Sweden, the prime minister has a lot more say in Swedish matters than the President of the US does in US matters.

A more interesting comparison might be to compare the US to the EU, and its respective states to each other. The Swedish population is only the size of Georgia, in both cases, most of its laws are dictated in another place, Washington and Strasbourg respectively, and in both countries the interest in voting participation to that central authority is low, despite the the number of laws passed there. European states do have some things that sets them apart, namely culture, language and the option of leaving the union, but in legal matters, I think the grand scale comparison is more interesting today. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and it's the same situation here in Finland. Although the President of Finland has some small traces of political power left, in practice the main power is on the Prime Minister. In fact, there have been discussions in Finland whether we even need the whole president any more. JIP | Talk 20:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

One of the most interesting cases of separation of power might be in South Africa, where they really seem to have taken separation of power seriously, by having three capitals. Pretoria (executive capital), Bloemfontein (judicial capital) and Cape Town (legislative capital) to make sure that they do not interfere with each other. This is a far cry from Sweden, where in the past I have felt that the term "Monarch", in the original sense of the word - Only One Person Rules - should really have been applied to the elected Prime minister of Sweden. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

From a Swedish perspective, where there is a powerful prime minister and a king with no real power, here is how the US system is different: The US president has some, but not all of the powers of the prime minister as well as the symbolic role of the Swedish king. Like the Swedish king, the U.S. president is the symbolic leader of the nation and is the one who meets with kings or queens on foreign visits as the head of the US state. Like the Swedish prime minister, the U.S. president is the head of the government. The U.S. president appoints all of the cabinet officials, and all of the heads of government departments (I think known as ministers in Sweden). The president, with his department heads, sets government policies for the application of laws, but cannot himself make laws. One of the president's greatest powers is control of the military. The president can order the military into action almost without effective limitation. However, unlike the Swedish prime minister, the U.S. president does not control the U.S. law-making body, known as Congress. The president cannot introduce bills into the legislature for passage as laws. Only a member of Congress can do that. Only Congress can formally declare war, but in fact the United States has been involved in a number of undeclared wars due to the president's ability to command the military without the need for approval by Congress. The president may be able to use his influence to get laws passed, but even his own party members are not required or even fully expected to do as the president wishes. The U.S. president may veto, or reject, laws passed by Congress, but Congress may override the president's veto with a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress. So the system is very different from a parliamentary one in which parliament is supreme. In the U.S. system, there is a separation of powers among three branches of government (legislative (Congress), executive (president), and judicial (courts)), such that each of the three branches is able to limit the power of the others and, ideally, prevent abuses of power. This is what is known as the system of "checks and balances". Marco polo (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

In Sweden, most suggestions of law come from the "riksdagen" (corresponding approx to congress) , but these are almost all rejected, much to the dismay of "riksdagen". Instead, the suggestions of law that actually passed (about 97%) come from "regeringen" (approx cabinet), where the Prime Minister sits with those he has appointed to help him. "Riksdagen" is still the place where these laws are formally passed. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The third part of the separation of power is judicial. Sweden does not even have Constitutional court, and its Supreme Court does not handle constitutional matters. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

German, France and Italy have implemented clear separations of power, whereas Canada, Britain and New Zealand have muddier separation of power. Instead of separation of power, the latter three have each implemented less formal systems of checks and balances. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• User:Marco polo's answer above is a excellent one. I would simply clarify that given the exigencies of modern warfare Congress has seen fit to pass various war powers acts which authorize the President to use force under specific situations for a limited time and subject to his making reports to the Congress and their review. Politically, it has been almost impossible for the Congress not to back presidential military action since the Carter and Reagan administrations. GWB famously sought congressional permission for his actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not declarations of war. Obama's claim in Libya was that we weren't actually in hostilities, so he didn't even need to report to Congress.

JIP's question seems to imply that "pretty much all northern, western and central European countries" each have similar political systems to each other when compared to the US. But they are not very similar. The one thing that is similar is that most are part of the EU, and therefore their politics are largely decided elsewhere. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think the EU compares remotely to the US federal government. The EU is still a relatively loose union; I think it's a gross exaggeration to say that the policies of its member states are largely decided at the EU level.

In the US, while it's true that most of the laws that directly regulate individual-to-individual relations are at the state level, federal law is nevertheless extremely important. For example, in almost all cases, your federal tax bill is substantially higher than your state tax bill, and the social insurance plans for the elderly (Social Security and Medicare) are at the federal level. The EU really has nothing like that. --Trovatore (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this reply. I am annoyed when people claim that the EU is a tightly-coupled federal nation just like the US. It's not even a nation at all, but a union between independent nations. JIP | Talk 10:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Most Europeans get annoyed by such claims. Usually such claims are born out of ignorance. The EU is not tightly coupled and it is certainly not a nation. Not all have the same currency, they all have their own military force, EU does not have any federal institutions, each state can all leave the EU whenever they want. The list goes on. But on a purely legislation-based perspective 70% of the local legal decisions made by the local council the city where I live are EU-related, either directly or indirectly, and most people in my city do not have a clue about this, or even what kind of laws are decided where at what level, city, state or higher. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be interesting to compare how large the corresponding proportion of laws were local and nation-wide in some large city and state within the USA , just as a comparison. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Many people in the U.S. (especially the Southern U.S.) say the same of this country - that it is a union of independent states. After all, the actual constitution is written that way. See interstate commerce clause and states' rights. Wnt (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Didn't the Constitution give all outward facing powers to the US? Germany can still make treaties, run their own nuclear weapons and wage war. New Jersey cannot. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

About Germany. Essentially, that is correct. I know this is nitpicking, but there would be a number of limitations: 1 Germany does not have their own nuclear weapons. Technically, I think they are still forbidden to have nuclear weapons. NATO has nuclear weapons in Germany. 2 If Germany wanted to make alliances and declare a war it would first have to contend with some restrictions on this set by Common Security and Defence Policy and NATO. 3. It is hard to see a situation today where Germany would want to declare war without NATO. Some other EU members are not part of NATO, some are less restricted by Common Security and Defence Policy (but that will pass), and some have more scenarios where war might be more probable, like England, Greece and Turkey. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Why did I pick the "most important" EU state? My next choice would've been France. I thought England was not really a country. Unless they cecede, or Wales and Northern Ireland follow what Scotland might and cecede, leaving England alone. I'm not even sure if this is legal. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

England is both a country and a nation, but not an independent state. Britain is a country and a state, but its claim to be a nation is more shaky and is why people go on about WW2 (because it is basically the founding myth of Britain as a nation). Constituent country might have helpful information. But England cannot go to war by itself: in this case, refering to England when people mean Britain is like calling the Netherlands 'Holland'. 86.161.109.226 (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I should have written the UK. I belong to generation so old that most people used "England" when they spoke of Great Britain or the UK, a time when even the Scots I knew would not get offended by that. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I did some digging. The German constitution forbids Germany to declare war. It was clear when I read the German article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegserkl%C3%A4rung that it could not, but I now have more sources and details about it. I read all the wikipedia articles in all the languages on the subject, and they were abysmally unclear on the subject for the vast majority of countries. At least the case is crystal clear for the US, Elizabeth II and Japan. The more I dig, the more countries I find that can not formally declare war today because it would be illegal for them to do so. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The Declaration of Independence and the first constitution (the Articles of Confederation) are written in terms of an alliance of sovereign states, but where is such language in the second Constitution (that of 1787)? —Tamfang (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, the original Articles of Confederation set up the USA as a loose coalition of independent states. That did not work out well, which is why the new Constitution was drafted & ratified, giving the Federal government power over interstate commerce, international treaties and taxation. The country still ran a bit loose for quite some time, but our Civil War solidified the Federal government's power in those matters. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

One ought to specify for whom it did not work out well. —Tamfang (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Current events: Bridgegate

Here is something I don't understand about the Bridgegate scandal. Some individuals are being asked (or ordered) to turn over documents. Some of these individuals are refusing to do so, under the "self-incrimination" protections of the US Constitution. See, for example, this article: [3]. So, here is my question. Isn't it true that any documents created by a government employee (during the course of their employment) is property of the government? And not property of that individual employee? I assume this is the case. So, what exactly is at issue in a case like Bridgegate? Are they asking for other (non-governmental) documents, emails, texts, etc., that the employee did at home, away from the office (i.e., outside of work)? They shouldn't have to request the documents created at work, as they belong to the government; they do not belong to the individual employee. So, can someone clear this up for me? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You are basically looking at executive privilege. Government agents argue that they don't have to turn over "work product" they themselves have created. That doesn't extend to subpoenaing someone else who has the records in question. NJ state law may differ on this. And I don't think there's any settled federal law on this doctrine, since it has been used explicitly as recently as Clinton, if not more recently. (Looking at our article, GWB and Obama have both evidently used the doctrine.) μηδείς (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I didn't word my question properly. So, for now, let's ignore the reasons for which someone might not hand over the documents. I'd like to focus on ownership. My question is: who exactly holds ownership of the documents? In other words, who do they belong to? Do they belong to the government? Do they (in this case) belong to the people of the state of New Jersey? Does the creator (employee) own them? Does a specific branch of the government own them? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to be making stuff up, but typically they would belong to the State of New Jersey (with the states being the sovereign entities involved) or the individual if it is a private communication made not using government property, like a state issued blackberry. Would the call of a governor directly calling his wife to tell her he'll be home late be "owned" by the state? Presumably the record of the call would be, but I doubt any court would require him to divulge the contents of what was said.

In this specific case the emails were archived and discovered. I know Federal law requires corporations to maintain databases of official emails. That law may or may not apply to the states (I suspect it doesn't) but the state itself is likely to have such a law.

"Communication" is such a broad issue, that asking who "owns" a communication which we don't even know if it was made orally or written or electronically is going to be hugely problematic, and goes back to issues of work product (was it campaign-related or duty-related) and so forth. The primary principles to keep in mind are that the state is sovereign, so the state will ultimately control waht it pays for. How such control is exercised (the legislatures keeping their own minutes) and what actually gets recorded are two more concrete difficulties. μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I guess I am still stumped. I don't see how a public official (e.g., a state governmental employee) can say "I know that this item is the property of the State. It is not my property. It belongs to the State. It does not belong to me. Nonetheless, I refuse to hand over this property that does not belong to me in the first place, and belongs to the State". I am just stumped by this logic or line of thinking. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Current events: Trial of Oscar Pistorius

Here is a copy of Oscar Pistoruis's affidavit. To μηδείς, I would like to know where – exactly – you see any speculation whatsoever in my original question. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I have a question about the trial of Oscar Pistorius. His story is that he thought he was shooting at an intruder/burglar who was hiding in the bathroom. Here is his chronology of events: He was in his bedroom; he thought that his girlfriend was also there in bed, with him. (He didn't know that it was the girlfriend who left the bedroom and went to the bathroom.) So, he goes to the bathroom and shoots at what he thinks is a burglar but in fact is his girlfriend. So, according to his story, did he say why he left the bedroom and went to the hallway/bathroom area in the first place? What prompted that action on his part? I missed this. What reason did he give? Or did he just say something generic like, "I heard a noise coming from the bathroom"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Closing per WP:BLP. Do NOT ask for speculation. If you want a source for a fact or a quote, add it outside the hat, please. μηδείς (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Re-opening.

Joseph asked for a fact: ... did he say why he left the bedroom and went to the hallway/bathroom area in the first place? What prompted that action on his part? I missed this. What reason did he give? Or did he just say something generic like, "I heard a noise coming from the bathroom"?.

Absolutely no speculation involved there. If these things have been reported, we can report them here without breaching BLP in any way. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack. Exactly. I am asking about a fact that happened in the past. (Most likely, within the formal document that Pistoruis had to offer at the beginning of the investigation a full year ago.) How that involves speculation, I have no idea. How that invokes BLP, I have no idea. And, in fact, since all of this is happening in an open court, it's probably public information anyway. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

I have no idea about the BLP thing either but I've learnt to just let it slide rather than worrying my pretty head about it. Had you asked "Did he intend to kill Reeva?", that would have been a problem. But you clearly didn't. You chose your words carefully, as always. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Again, closing editorial commentary outside the courtroom. The OP has asked a non-speculative question below. μηδείς (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, re-opening. Exactly where is there any speculation? And about what, exactly? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, Jack, this is not talk space. The ref desk is required to offer sources just like article space for BLP, and the OP himself has reworded the question. μηδείς (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC) |}

Thanks, again. In essence, my question could be re-phrased as something along the lines of "What did Pistorius say on June 5, 2013 (or whatever date his statement was presented to the court)?". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't find that specifically, but this article may address some of your questions about why-this and why-that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There were no questions asked about "why" anything. They were all about "what" he gave as reasons. The whole point of the trial is to gauge whether those stated reasons were in fact why he did it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the point of the trial is to determine whether the evidence squares with his story or version of how it happened - or vice versa. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

And in fact this item, linked within Trial of Oscar Pistorius, would likewise seem to answer the OP's questions - particularly, why did he enter the bathroom. e says a feeling of dread came over him, and he shot through the door of the stall. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. Nobody disputes that he shot her. He claims he was shooting what he thought was a burglar behind a door, but the prosecution maintains he knew full well whom he was shooting. That's the issue. If everyone accepted what he said about why he pulled the trigger, there would be nothing to have any trial about. Joseph is asking what he said; in a case like this, whether that is really and truly "why" he did it or not is very much the question to be settled by the court. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

"What he said" has been covered. He said he shot while standing on his stumps, as he had not taken the time to attach his blades because he was kind of in panic mode because somehow he thought there was a burglar in the bathroom. He fired through the door, yelled at his housemate to call 911, and discovered to his horror that it wasn't a burglar, it was his housemate. That's his story. The police analysis is (or was) that he was, in fact, standing on his blades. If they demonstrate that claim, then it tends to erode the credibility of his story. If they fail to demonstrate that, then it tends to improve the credibility of his story. But that's his story. The OP needs to read the links in that article and here, and tell us whether he has further questions or if it's clear now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

What does talk space have to do with anything? BLP applies there just as much as anywhere else. The OP reworded his question only because you advised, erroneously, that his original formulation was contrary to BLP because it contained speculation. Well, that is just not true. I asked you to point out where this alleged speculation was, and you have failed to do so. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:54 am, Today (UTC−5)

I've restored your objection. I also reported this to BLP before you made that objection. This is a living person, and every searchable part of WP needs refs supporting otherwise defamable remarks, at the least. This is not the ref desk talk page. μηδείς (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

You continue to avoid my questions, and I remain completely unconvinced that any breach of BLP has taken place on this thread. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know for sure who made them since they were unsigned, but I have removed some rather dumb hattings here by removing completely the posts. Please remember if you believe a BLP violation has already occured, it's serves little purpose to hat and doesn't help deal with the BLP violation. The only reason you may hat a discussion relating to BLP, is if you believe a post may lead to a BLP violation but none has occured yet. This may apply to the first posts, but from the closing summary did not apply to the posts I removed. I don't personally know if a BLP violation occured but I generally prefer to defer in favour of BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote earlier, if someone acts in some way, then the reason why he did that is often not known to the person himself, because it's usually result of subconscious processing of information. Especially in case of danger you will act fast on "autopilot". One has to consider that if you could always give a simple explanation why someone did what he did, then you could replace the brain of that person by a simple programmable pocket calculator. In reality such calculator would fall way short of even being able to function as the brains of a fruit fly. Count Iblis (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The moral of this case is that there ought to be a law against shooting through a frickin' door. It never seems to end well. If you want to kill somebody, at least have the courtesy to do it to their face. Wnt (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The heavily armed burglar will watch the door, before you can open it properly you will already have been shot dead. Count Iblis (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Burglars aren't usually there to stay, so why would you be the one needing to open the door? Obviously that would be a tactical disadvantage, but you don't have to. Wnt (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Are foods allowed to be dropped into the offertory plate?

Are foods allowed to be dropped into the offertory plate? Instead of dropping bills and coins, can you drop fruits and vegetables instead? The fruits and vegetables may be alms, because they can be consumed. Instead of being tithed money, can you give a tithe in terms of your weekly consumption of grain? Every week, you may buy a sack of grain. You keep 9/10 of it for yourself and donate 1/10 of its weight to the church. 140.254.227.86 (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Churches might do food drives, where food is gathered for the poor, homeless, etc. It doesn't go into the offering plate, though. I think a church would probably exempt anyone who had to pay in food from tithing, unless they're some prosperity cult.

Paying with food instead of money is sort of the origin of blackmail, if I remember correctly (though with taxes instead of tithes). Pre-modern tax-collectors would sometimes accept food only to tell the taxpayer that it wasn't enough, coming back for more and more than if the peasant had just paid with gold. Any "church" that would do that I'd gladly set fire to in the name of Christ. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I would think the typical size of the typical collection plate would make the OP's idea impractical. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If you are asking this about a church you go to yourself, this is not really a question that Wikipedia can answer. The best thing to do would be to ask your priest/pastor/minister. The more general answer is that in the past tithes were sometimes paid "in kind", which includes agricultural products. You will also see from our article on the offertory that alms given at this time have sometimes included other things than money. You may have slightly misunderstood one thing about tithing, though: you do not give 1/10 of your consumption (or whatever the proportion is in your community), you give 1/10 of your production or earnings. So if you earn $1000, or pick 1000 apples from your orchard, a full application of tithing would mean you would give $100, or 100 fairly chosen apples, to your church, even if you only spend $500 taking care of yourself, or only eat 500 apples. That is, your tithing is a gift to the church (and thus to God), based on the work you have done. (Also, notice that the rules about tithing differ from church to church, and even vary in different parts of the Bible; see the article on tithing for more details.) RomanSpa (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Basically, the collection is to cover the running expenses of the church and you can't pay the electricity bill or insurance premium with fruit.

However, in the Church of England most parishes observe a Harvest Festival in the autumn, when parishioners bring gifts of food. This is either donated directly to someone that needs it, such as a homeless people's shelter or a hospice, or sometimes the food is auctioned off to the congregation at the end of the service and the money raised is given to a project in a developing country. People don't put the food in a plate, but at a given point in the service, people bring their gifts to the front of the church and it is laid in front of the altar. Alansplodge (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it depends on the church. Some collections may be taken to cover running expenses, but at some churches collections are taken for the "poor of the parish", or for a wide variety of charitable organisations, both local and of wider scope. RomanSpa (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• We're, again, overcomplicating matters for the OP. Under normal circumstances, when the "plate is passed", they are asking you for a cash donation if you can spare it. The church doesn't want your leftover celery. Could you maybe, possibly, find a church that collects food somewhere in the entire world? Probably. But if the OP wants to know how most Christian churches work, the passing of the plate is for the collection of cash for a variety of reasons; including both the churches operating budget (to pay the salary and/or living expenses of the clergy, to pay the electric and water bills, insurance, etc.) AND to pay for the church's various missionary activity, including charitable work and proselytizing work. That's what the plate is passed for, that's what it is used for. There's no need to hedge on the standard procedure and expectations here on the off chance some weird church actually expects a small sack of grain from any of the attendees. The church passes the plate for money. Don't put an apple in there. You'd confuse everyone, quite probably insult people. It is absolutely OK to put nothing in the plate; no one would notice or care. Many church members tithe electronically nowadays anyways. We do; my family tithes by automatic bank draft once a month, so we put nothing in the plate. No one would care if you put nothing. Or, you put in money if you are led to by your heart. --Jayron32 02:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • In olden times, farmers would store their harvest in two barns, the smaller one called a "tithe barn" which was to hold 10 percent of the farmer's crop, which would be donated to the church, presumably for distribution to the poor. Pretty hard to fit a tithe barn into a collection plate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but the point is, the OP is not asking about "If I lived 300 years ago and was expected to give from my grain stores, what did people do back then" He's asking about people going into a Christian church today when the plate is passed. Put a check or some cash in. Or don't. Those are your options. Either of those is very much acceptable especially putting nothing in the plate No one will think bad of a person who did put nothing. Doing something like putting food in the plate would be weird and possibly insulting. --Jayron32 03:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't do it. I've been to churches where worshippers have left gifts of food, toys etc. at the altar rather than in the offertory box or on the plate. Maybe that would suit your purposes better. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with several commentators above. Few if any churches would welcome this. For starters even if a church did welcome contributions of perishable food, just dumping it in the collection plate is unlikely to be welcome. Depending on the country, coins may be common and even without coins, passing the plate, hands putting in donations etc could easily damage the food. Not to mention even one or two pieces of fruit or vegetables would easily fill the plate, let alone the amount that would be necessary for a decent donation in many countries.

Of course, even most charities and churches which do welcome food usually don't want perisable food (like fresh fruits and veges) from random donors, they'd usually want some sort of coordination to make sure they can resonably use the food.

Also as I understand it, in many cases even donating non-perisable food like canned goods is often not particularly helpful, frequently (depending on stuff like country and size of the organisation), the organisations can get it a lot cheaper than you ever can so unless you are actually producing it, it's dumb for you to buy it to donate plus you create coordination and similar problems. If you bought a lot of canned food and find you don't want it, you could undoutedly find a church or other charity which would accept it by asking, but this doesn't mean it makes sense to tithe in that fashion.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps other agricultural products would be more compact. Goethe said that "the Holy Church's stomach alone can take Ill-gotten goods without stomach-ache." I'm not sure how the priest would react to find a few tiny bags of heroin on the collection plate, but I imagine some of the parishoners would be grateful. :) Wnt (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

March 8

How do I file for divorce

I wanna know how to file for divorce in Texas 65.175.250.237 (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

We cannot offer legal advice, but we can advise you to speak to a lawyer. Google Search gives some information, too. DISCLAIMER: The results of this Google search have nothing to do with Wikipedia, nor with any of Wikipedia's contributors. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If your spouse is poor, mentally retarded, under 18, doesn't speak English, or is not a US citizen, then the quickest way to get a divorce may well be to accuse them of a capital crime on very little evidence, and wait for them to be quickly convicted and executed. StuRat (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Define "quick" execution, in the US. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

StuRat, stop giving my spouse ideas! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 22:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, with mine, two out of four ain't bad... :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Two out of which four out of the five? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory about Death of Adolf Hitler

How many people said they saw his body? The evidence in the article above seems kinda thin, since all appear to be connected to him somehow. On the top of that, the piece of skull, that was thought to be Hitler's, was not. It is also known that prominent Nazis fled to South America. Why wouldn't a man with all the power in his country board a submarine and disappear? I am not a friend of conspiracy theories, but in this case, how to prove that he died when they say he died? OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Berlin is a couple of hundred kilometres from the next plausible submarine harbour, all through allied-controlled territory. Hitler was 56, not particularly healthy, and one of the best-known faces on the planet. On another level, how do you prove anything in history? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Certain things have better evidence backing them than others. This is not about ancient history, but something that happened, in historical terms, recently. The submarine bit is just speculation. But he could have survived and have hidden in the same way that Saddam hid for a long time, or, Radovan Karadžić hid, and even attended conferences giving lectures to hundred of people, in a country where everyone knew him too. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

As I recall from the early 90s, when a fair number of KGB secrets came out, there was no question they had Hitler's body. It's just that their secretiveness about it (and everything else), opened the door to various speculations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

These ideas have been around a long time, and seem plausible enough to me. Here's a recent version of it [4] though that article is dismissive of the idea. When I think of how much art and other treasure wormed its way out of Germany, and how much money Hitler would have had to bargain with, I find it very hard to believe he did not escape. Especially when, as our article, otherwise sanitized, admits, the skull fragments of "Hitler" turned out to be someone else. Also see Project Paperclip. Wnt (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC) N.B. the case may well be settled soon enough. The Mail article says he had daughters, and with large-scale DNA sequencing becoming easy, and touted for any number of reasons voluntary and involuntary, it should be possible to track back and figure out where each piece of their DNA came from in past generations, to the point where their ancestry is readily discoverable. Wnt (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This is of course ignoring all the Germans who also saw him alive in the bunker in the last few days, and his entire character and life history... Adam Bishop (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can drag any gang member, serial killer, child rapist, or terrorist out of the deepest hole in America and if he says something I might believe it, but I'm not inclined to hold those in Hitler's bunker in such high regard. And we know that a murder or an escape can happen and yet out of an entire prison not one person will speak up and say what happened. Wnt (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure I guess, but you have to assume that everyone who ever associated with Hitler was a monster and a liar; shockingly some of them were just regular people like us... Adam Bishop (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me. Sure, someone like Albert Speer writes a lovely book that almost sounds like he just wanted to build pretty buildings, but if you look closely enough... the illusion doesn't hold. And prisons are full of ordinary people - lots of ordinary people are convicted wrongly, though no one will believe them. But when push comes to shove, when there's something they're not supposed to talk about, they realize it's better to let the authorities keep scratching their heads than to spend the rest of their lives wondering if the last thing they'll see is their wives and kids having their throats cut. Stop Snitchin' is a real thing even in the nominally "free" neighborhoods to which the poor are consigned. And with the U.S. government very clearly, almost openly giving out free passes to every Werner von Braun to cross their doorstep, the Nazis would have been very clear on the idea that telling would be something with a huge downside and very little upside. And that's before we even get to the carrot - that the Nazis were flush with billions in counterfeited money and stolen art, which could be disbursed immediately or on an installment plan. The amount of Nazi plunder that has circulated, some to this day, also illustrates that Hitler could have passed through a military cordon rendered porous by large amounts of valuable goods. Wnt (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Your logic is unintelligible to me. The upside of telling the truth is that you can't be caught out in a lie. If you need to lie, the best approach is to do so with as little deviation from the truth as possible, as you are more likely to get away with it. Speer's books were not a pack of blatant lies. They were self-serving versions of events that obfuscated his own involvement and knowledge as much as he could get way with and be believed. A big fat lie that everyone sticks to about Hitler's death is just not plausible. Anyone who told the "truth" would have huge potential advantages from the allies, if the story was plausible. But it just wasn't. Hitler could easily have escaped if he'd wanted to. All he had to do was leave a few days earlier. But there was always the chance he'd eventually be captured, or handed over. And he'd have to live the rest of his life in obscurity as a fugitive. Nothing we know about his personality suggests that he would have wanted that. I don't even understand what you are saying about "Nazi plunder" helping him to pass through a "military cordon". None did that. It wasn't a case of bribing one guard. There were allied troops everywhere. They'd all have to be corrupt, which is just not plausible. Paul B (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Military people are very good at not looking into a crate or not looking into a truck when they're told the contents are secret. Whether it's a truckload of confiscated military prototypes, stolen art, or Fuhrer and friends drinking beer, who can say? Provided they don't get drunk enough to start singing, anyway. And we should remember that the U.S. made a lot of "practical" accommodations to get advantage over the Communists - including having virtually no successful war crimes trials of the Japanese who tortured American troops. Wnt (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

There was no "Practical" accommodation involved in helping Hitler to escape, which would have been to no advantage to anyone, and "military people" would only do as you say if they had clear orders to do so. No other Nazi leader got away in comparable circumstances. None. The essential point is that if Hitler had wanted to get away he could and would have arranged it earlier, rather than leaving it to the last minute when the chances of succeeding were remote. Paul B (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Cash, intelligence reports on the Russians, military research, worldwide contacts... someone might have found an excuse, if already somewhat favorable to Nazi ideology. It is true of course that Nazi hunters went after lower profile targets than Hitler, but Adolf Eichmann wasn't exactly a nobody. As for your argument that he could have escaped earlier -- he was at that point, frequently encountered in fiction, where the only way to be safe is to be "dead". (Now to be sure, I'm not saying this is the only way; indeed, there is the somewhat amusing other option, so reminiscent of Osama bin Laden's peculiar burial, that would place Hitler in some nearly forgotten bunker hundreds and hundreds of floors below NKVD headquarters, hooked up to state of the art life support and facing periodic and most intense "interrogation" sessions without much concern for the answers even to this very day)

I don't get how we can be so certain that Hitler was dead in 1945. I think he has escaped. Look, my strongest evidence is the skull, we thought all along was his, turned out to be from a woman. I know his body was exhumed and scattered in the river back in the 70's, but apparently, they kept the skull. The skull was from the Hitler's body. If the skull wasn't from Hitler then we can be certain that the dead body wasn't Hitler. Therefore, the fact, whether we like it or not, is Hitler's body was never found. He could have easily escaped, considered that many top Nazi officials have done so. Plus, I don't trust any of the eyewitnesses as they all were Germans and Hitler's supporters at one point. It wouldn't hard to believe that they would do anything to help Hitler successfully escape by spreading the big lie that he was dead. It would be more believable if an American or Soviet actually witness Hitler's death, or any witness beside German. The article should not portray Hitler's death in 1945 as fact because it's not a fact. There is really no concrete evidence to support that fact beside all the German witnesses, who by nature are not reliable by the slightest and should not be taken into account.75.168.125.23 (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"If the skull wasn't from Hitler then we can be certain that the dead body wasn't Hitler." This is a complete non sequitur. If the Nazis wanted to fake Hitler's death, why would they put the body of a woman in the supposed grave. Did they think the Russians were dumb? If the Russians wanted to pretend they had found Hitler's body, why use the skull of a woman, when there were many 50-something male corpses to choose from? It makes no sense. The fact is, we have very little evidence that the skull came from the body that was scattered. It's just a bit of skull that some Soviet archivist said came from the body. And we know how reliable history was in the Soviet Union. Since Adolf and Eva were buried together and their bodies burned, it would be easy for a bit of Eva's skull to be mislabeled as Adolf's. There were also many other people who killed themselves in and around the bunker. You are assuming that these body-bits were stored in conditions of great care. That's highly unlikely. Also "many top Nazi officials" did not escape. None of the main leadership did, certainly not those who were in the Berlin bunker at the time. They were completely surrounded. Yes, some simply disappeared, like Bormann and Heinrich Müller, but by the far the most likely explanation is that they were killed or committed suicide and their bodies were not identified. There were thousands of corpses littering the streets. Bormann's skull was later found. Müller's has not been, but that means almost nothing. Paul B (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Does South Africa have some kind of stand-your-ground laws?

Otherwise, I can't see how Pistorius would be completely innocent, whether he shot a burglar through a door, or his girlfriend. But, yes, not every jurisdiction restrict self-defense to the minimum force needed to defend yourself. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

South Africa is of course somewhat famous for being the home of the Blaster (flamethrower). Anyway there is some discussion of South African self defence laws here [5] [6]. These are general not specific to this case, I found some which are specific to this case from a simple search, but for WP:BLP reasons I will not be providing them here (I could email them to you if you really can't find them). It's worth remembering that Oscar Pistorius says he was on his stumps during the shooting of someone he thought was an intruder in his bathroom (and from what I can tell, the prosecution agrees the stumps bit is likely [7]). What is resonable in such a situation may be different from someone without such a limitation on their movement. On the other hand, there's no question that the person he killed was not an intruder. Nil Einne (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Greek daktylos

Does anyone know of a source for which finger the ancient Greek measurement of "daktylos" refers to? Upon comparison to ancient Hebrew measurements it would seem that it is a thumb (the Herews calculated a handbreadth as 4 thumbs or 5and a third regular fingers or 6 little fingers). 77.127.225.235 (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I suspect if anybody will specify that level of detail, it might be Oxford reference [8]. I can't login right now, but I will check later if nobody else can find a good ref. You might be able to get access through your library. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

EO indicates simply "finger".[9] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked the Oxford ref with full access, but it didn't have much additional info. Apparently "monas" is a synonym, so that might help. Oxford lists this book as their source [10], but it is in Romanian, and probably hard to get. This page [11] specifies that it is "fingerbreadth", so that makes the ~0.75 inches estimate make more sense. I don't recall if ancient Greek has a separate word for "thumb", but my WP:OR is that fingerbreadth varies more between humans than in does within one humans hand (but perhaps that was less true in a more homogenous population). SemanticMantis (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You may be right, however the ancient measurements based on body parts were certainly based on some "standard" person. The ratio of the sizes of different fingers are probably pretty similar in all people. So in whatever hand was used as the standard, 4 thumbs = 5-1/3 fingers = 6 pinkies 77.127.225.235 (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

March 9

The disease of kings

Gout. The old adage is that gout is the disease of kings. I have always wondered....what kings do we know of that actually had gout?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Henry VIII of England was believed to have suffered from gout, and the term "disease of kings" is probably related to him. --Canley (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Also Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor ([12]). --Canley (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Asa of Judah's "foot disease" is often said to have been gout (see here, for example), though our article doesn't mention it. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be spelled "the disease of Kings", then. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Queen Anne too. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Jacques Necker - French Finance Minister

The article for Necker gives two different dates (29 June 1777 AND October 1776) for his commencement as Director-General.

Could someone please clarify?

Thanks 120.148.242.185 (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can figure out from the German version, Necker was made contrôleur général des finances in October 1776 and then formally became directeur général des finances in June 1777. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

History

How can I prove that everything before I was born (1991) wasn't a hoax? I mean, I was not alive before then, so I can not verify that all these things happened . They could be forgeries. Same could be said before you were born. --Sammen Salmonord (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not brave enough to try and answer that! However, solipsism is the area of philosophy concerned with that kind of thought. Thincat (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

See also epistemology (and ontology and metaphysics or perhaps Occam's razor). Even I think therefore I am doesn't really establish that the past is not a hoax or shared hallucination. Short answer: you can't, not based on axiomatic reasoning, logic, or direct observation and experimentation, no matter how rigorous. -- and you can never definitively disprove any manner of trickster gods. (Mostly non-philosophers just ignore that problem and lead our normal lives ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the past before your birth could be a hoax. The whole world (and universe) could have been created last Thursday and none of us could prove otherwise, let alone way back in 1991. Philip Henry Gosse figured that out back in 1857 in his book Omphalos. Edison (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You can't even prove you were born; at least, born on a particular date in a particular place. Can you honestly say you remember it? How do you know you weren't adopted? Why should you trust your parents or the Registrar of Births, any more than those shoddy books that allege people like Lincoln and Gandhi and Henry VIII existed? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It was a hoax. You got me. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And an old one at that. From Horse Feathers (1934):

Prosecutor: Chicolini, when were you born?

Chicolini: I don't remember. I was just a little-a baby.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

First..prove you exist then worry about everything before that.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Only the Glaroon knows for sure. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Descartes had doubts about everything in his Meditations. Doubt can be a fruitful exercise. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Also consider the many-worlds interpretation and Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics... Suppose you have a sentience (whatever that is) newly created, which has never interacted with the world except by the sole information it is created. Then the rest of the world is like Schroedinger's cat in a box - it doesn't know whether it is alive or dead, or what it is. Then it makes an observation, and another, and another, and the rest of the world becomes resolved into more and more specific quantum states... (the two hypotheses differ in that for one there is a different consciousness branching for every possible outcome of these observations, the other that there is only one "real" one) Wnt (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Could a medieval monk leave the monastery?

If a medieval monk ever decided that he no longer wanted to live a life of poverty, chastity and obedience could he leave the monastery and live an average but moral life? What was the process he'd have to go through to be released from the monastery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.135.44 (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You are speaking of a thousand-year period spread over at least a continent, and not defining "average" or "moral". You might want to ask a more specific claim. You can look at Category:Monastic rules, but this doesn't cover every Catholic monastic order. μηδείς (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Also didn't specify Catholic. The bhikku vows are for life. Of course, if people can escape prison and live a new life, they can escape anything. Actually, reading my own link, it seems you can give up and retake your vows, but only seven times. Seems fair. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

Here are 227 other rules, if anyone's interested. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

Medeis makes a valid point (and one I always mention when someone asks about "the Middle Ages" in general, but nevertheless, the answer is still "yes"...generally speaking. A monk would need the permission of the abbot to be dispensed from his monastic vows, just like a priest would have to get permission from the bishop to dispense with his priestly vows. They weren't slaves, so as long as they had a good reason, they could certainly do so. If they thought they just couldn't hack it as a monk, that might not be the greatest reason, and they would probably have a kind of remedial monastic training to prepare them better. But some people just aren't suited for that kind of life, so they could leave if they really wanted to. Some monks were the stereotypical "younger sons" who were sent to the monastery by their well-off family as children, so they would have somewhere to go and someone to support them if they left, but that wouldn't be true for all monks. For many of them, the monastery was their best means of support, whether they wanted to be there or not. I'm trying to think of some "former monks" to give as examples, but none are springing to mind, although I am sure I will think of some... Adam Bishop (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Some monks didn't live a life of chastity and obedience. Some monks got married secretly and had children. Some monks had illegitimate children. That's where new monks and nuns came from.
Sleigh (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes the monks and nuns ran away together! Adam Bishop (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Was exclaustration practiced in "the Middle Ages"? I wasn't quick in finding anything conclusive. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Ancient obscene embroidery?

There is an internet meme which I saw on Facebook, consisting of what looks like an old piece of embroidery, with a picture of people near a building by a field, and old style letters spelling out "Behold! The field in which I grow my fucks. Lay thine eyes upon it and thou shalt see that it is barren." I wondered if it is some old Bible verse or old motto and the "fucks" is supposed to be "flax" or somesuch, but a Google search for the rest of the phrase only turned up recent blogs and twitter feeds laughing about it, dating back a few weeks. What's up with it? Edison (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be something photoshopped from the Bayeux tapestry. In a more authentic example of the same phenomenon, the word "sucks" is sometimes hilariously transformed into "fucks" with genuine "old style letters", as you call it, by use of the long s. Hence "where the bee ſucks, there ſuck I" [13]. Paul B (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It's just a joke. It is generated in the style of the Bayeux Tapestry, which is why you think it looks like embroidery. The language and spelling used is completely inconsistent with the era, and it doesn't refer to any Bible verse. It is written in the style of the King James Bible (17th century English), and then an image has been created to look like it was embroidered in the 11th century. Because it's all "old", right? I would assume the sort of geek who put in the time to edit the letters so nicely onto the picture considered writing the motto in realistic abbreviated Latin, with a translation provided, but then concluded funny was more important than creating a convincing forgery. 86.161.109.226 (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be a product of this website, which allows you to "redesign" the Bayeux tapestry [14]. Paul B (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Genuine ancient obscene embroidery.

Although the original shows a couple of random naked chaps in the lower margin for no apparent reason - those nuns were not as innocent as you'd think. Alansplodge (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

In case it's not obvious to some, this is based on the expression "I don't give a fuck." Which is probably relatively old. Much more recently, internet jokes were made of the form "...and not a single fuck was given that day" [15] or "look at all the fucks I give (implication of "none") [16]. But thanks OP; unlike most iterations, I do find this one humorous! SemanticMantis (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

March 10

Cryonic

I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say. "However, the idea of cryonics also includes preservation of people after longer post-mortem delays because of the possibility that brain structures encoding memory and personality may still persist or be inferable." I need someone to explain it to me. Thanks!75.168.125.23 (talk) 05:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The previous sentence is "Cryonics procedures ideally begin within minutes of cardiac arrest, and use cryoprotectants to prevent ice formation during cryopreservation." The important part for the context of the next sentence is "within minutes". I'm not sure which part you have problems with but here is a longer version: It's considered best to freeze the body very quickly after death (to avoid deterioration before the freezing starts). But freezing may also be attempted in cases where more time has passed since death ("post-mortem"), in the hope that brain parts responsible for memory and personality have not deteriorated yet or may still be recovered in the future. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This part is confusing "after longer post-mortem delays". What is being delayed here? I think it should be "after longer post-mortem 'decay'". Perhaps, there is a subject-verb confusion in the sentence. Or perhaps to keep it simple so that people can understand it easier, it should be "after being dead for a while". I'm sure not many people would be familiar with the post-mortem term. 75.168.125.23 (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The delay is whatever holds up the beginning of cryo procedure. —Tamfang (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The wording is not very good, pretty redundant. The word delay itself implies it would take place a while later, not within the ideal "within minutes". I don't see any reason to put in longer. Plus, in the sentence, "delays" is used as a verb not as a noun such as "the delay"; this is exactly what I suspected subject-verb confusion before. I guess this problem is resolved.75.168.125.23 (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

And there is actually a grammar problem. The delay is supposedly to implicate whatever that delays the cryonics procedure. However, due to the placement of the word delay within the sentence, it simply doesn't make sense. The delay in the sentence would modify post-mortem (death). Death has nothing to do with what delays the cryonics procedure. This is misplaced modifier. The sentence is redundant and contain a couple grammatical errors.75.168.125.23 (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think the responses above answer this adequately. Here is the basic point: If you wanted to be able to thaw a person and revive them without extensive repair, then the freezing would have to take place very soon after death, otherwise the brain and other tissues would deteriorate. But the more repair you are able to do, the longer you might be able to wait. Neuroscientists believe that a person's memories are stored by altering the strength of synaptic connections between brain cells. If the brain deteriorates too much, those structures will basically dissolve into goo and there won't be any hope of reconstructing the memories. But as long as the deterioration is small enough for the strength of synapses to be measured, they hold a record of the person's memories and all the things the person knows. Looie496 (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, and the difference is between trying to bring that body (or head) back to life, which requires minimal damage, or scanning it with some future atomic level CAT scan equivalent, then transferring that intelligence into another device. Personally I think too much damage occurs during the freezing process and minutes between death and freezing to ever allow the first option, but the 2nd option seems possible, to me. StuRat (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Patriarchs

I am but dust and ashes. Please help me to understand the patriarchs. And their story. I am but inquirer. Bless all wikipedians who are true and honest in the search for insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.41.201 (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I am unsure as to which definition of patriarch you mean. Commonly it can refer to the Three Patriarchs in the Jewish-Christian-Muslim tradition of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But it can also refer to a high-ranking church official in some Christian churches. Or it can more generally mean "the rule of fathers", which refers to a male-dominated society where men hold all positions of leadership. So, perhaps those will give some idea of what you want to know. If you have a more specific question, perhaps we can help. --Jayron32 11:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Last week, I'd've guessed this was related to Ash Wednesday, but he could be quoting Simcha Bunim of Peshischa's reference to Genesis. Either way, The articles on Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would probably be most appropriate. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"I am but dust and ashes" in Genesis is actually said by Abraham, one of the patriarchs. There is no need to invoke the Rebbe of Pshischa... הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Portents after traumatic events

I'm looking for historical evidence of 'collective PTSD', i.e. avoidance or hyperarousal (the two main symptoms of individual PTSD). Following catastrophes in the past (plagues, earthquakes etc.), are there accounts of people behaving either individually or en masse in either of these two ways? I seem to remember accounts of people seeing 'portents in the sky' after such events and displaying these symptoms, but the only accounts I can find refer to portents seen before. 78.146.33.172 (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Does Mass hysteria help? --Jayron32 15:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The question is sort of disconnected. Collective PTSD is common after earthquakes, in the sense that for a long time afterward people are nervous about being indoors and suffer from nightmares and generalized anxiety. But PTSD doesn't really have anything to do with portents. Looie496 (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but in a general sense, "portent", in the sense of "A sense of anticipation of an event" is a symptom of PTSD. People with PTSD can experience the sense that something bad is about to happen; that often causes them to respond in anticipation of such bad events; even if they are entirely psychological in nature. I believe that is what the OP means by "portent". --Jayron32 16:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"Portents in the sky" historically might have referred to an eclipse early on (before astronomers could predict them) or a comet later (until astronomers could predict, or at least explain, those). Note that the population might have been stressed out just by these events, without any actual disaster. StuRat (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This sounds kind of like the acronym FEAR = Future Events Appearing Real. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Introduction of Western dress in Greece

When did the upper classes in Ottoman Greece start to wear the Western fashion? Alexandra Mavrokordatou had a salon, so could it perhaps be as early as in the 17th-century? Or did it not happen until Greek independence? I have no idea at all. --Aciram (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

How did they measure long-distance travel in the past?

I recently learned that miles, as a way of measuring length/distance, came into use quite late, around 1500, and the Kilometer only around 1800. Obviously, the mile have been defined in different ways so maybe it could be argued exactly when and where it began.

But my questions are two;

1) What way of measuring long travel-distances did they use in the high middle ages?

2) What way of measuring long travel-distances did they use in the Roman empire? (yes I know it stretches over a long time, but they probably used the same method throughout this era, I should think.)

Krikkert7 (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Maps were not unknown in the ancient world. You'd be surprised how accurate they were, without GPS nor any form of satellite. History of cartography will give you an outline. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course they knew their measurements back then also, and could no doubt make accurate maps. I'm not at all saying they were idiots. I'm just asking what methods/unit of measure they used :) Thanks for the link. I'll take a look at it now. Krikkert7 (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The article provies some units used at various times, such as travelling time via various means and Li (unit) which links to League (unit) (both of which are generally related to travelling time anyway) which you may have heard of from Jules Verne's Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea. It doesn't seem to mention what the Romans used, nor does the articles it links to Pomponius Mela nor Tabula Peutingeriana. The later mentions distances but not the unit. But these sources [17] [18] mention that either Roman mile or leuga gallica was used, depending on the area. If you follow the links on the league page, you should end up at Ancient Roman units of measurement which also mention these units (although doesn't explain when the different units were used). Nil Einne (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

From mile: "The Romans, when marching their armies through Europe, were the first to use the unit of long distance mille passuum (literally a thousand paces)." However, when people travelled on foot or horseback, distance measurements were of limited use because the type of terrain traversed made a huge difference. It was far more useful to describe distances in terms of so many days march, or so many weeks at sea, etc.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Evidence for bible code

Did you know that in the Torah (Old Testament) every 666th letter spells out the phrase "Satan the accuser". This happens exactly 7 times.

Can you show the evidence of this to me please.

http://www.bibleprobe.com/biblecode.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 07scott (talk • contribs) 19:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest reading up on the article covering Bible code, in particular the section on criticism of it. You might also find the article on confirmation bias relevant. There is also some relevant information in the answers given when you asked a similar question a little over a week ago. WegianWarrior (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, the equivalent of the "Old Testament" is the Tanach. The equivalent of Torah is Books of Moses. Paul B (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Major General Sir Herbert Stewart.jpg

OK Reference Desk tricky one for you, Who is the R. Taylor named as the engraver responsible for this work?

In order to satisfy Commons licensing policy, a date of death of the R. Taylor concerned is needed.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Richard Taylor (active 1871-1901). His date of death is not known. He was a professional wood-engraver employed by the ILN. There were many of them. I think we can assume that he died before 1944. Paul B (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Is my life a fake?

How do I know that everyone involved in my life isn't an actor? What if God or another power has set up my life for his own observation, and everyone around me is scripted? Every bird flying in the sky, every plane crash, every car on the road could all be preplanned for my life, could it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoppingalten (talk • contribs) 20:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If you have to ask, you'll never know. Go listen to some jazz or something but don't waste any more of your (or our) time by asking unanswerable questions here. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. The condition you set implies that you'll never know. Try to enjoy life anyway. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't a fake life be subject to tropes? Hcobb (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

My sophomore honors English professor got angry at our class one day (for vehemently denying that he could know without knowing us personally that we were racists due to structural racism), and ended up screaming at us that we couldn't even prove we existed. A student who eventually became a housemate of mine then pulled out a penknife and tossed it at the professor's head, and it stuck in the wall next to him with a thwang. The student then asked whether the knife existed, and the professor said, "Class dismissed." μηδείς (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You cannot even know that You didn't set it up and plant false memories in yourself. See http://www.last-thursday.org/questions. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)