Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reference desk

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 177.92.128.26 (talk) at 17:49, 7 July 2017 (→‎Does china one/two children policy worked/works?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
skip to bottom
Select a section:
Shortcut
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:


July 2

Swedish source

There's a picture of a Sweden girl with bloody face, which was a victim of a Muslim gang. Just google for 'sweden rape bloodied face'. I am having difficulties finding the original article (from 2005). Can someone provide it?--Hofhof (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Providing original sources of the purview of WP:REX. Maybe someone there can help?--Jayron32 04:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this photo [1]? That photo is used [2] and elsewhere in association with a story which blew up on the web around the end of November 2005, but I'd urge strong caution on trusting any details on such sites.

Using a Google reverse image search, I did find [3] which seems to be a photo of the Expressen tabloid frontpage from 26 March 2005 with the same photo. A search on their site finds [4] which seems to confirm it was really their front page. That story also suggests they appeared on a TV programme in Sweden called Wanted. It's possible the image was broadcast there as the story suggests the victim wanted the image to be shown at the time. However the photo on the above blog clearly isn't from the newspaper cover (the one on the blog has more details including a time stamp) and I can't find any other variant on the Expressen site. I don't think, but can't be certain that it's a screen cap of a still from TV either.

The blog does mention another source however that [5]/[6] doesn't seem to have the photo. (It also links to a search of the TV3 page, what it's supposed to find I'm not sure but unsurprisingly it doesn't work and I don't think you'll have much luck find an archive.) But I noticed our article on Expressen mentions Aftonbladet as the other main Swedish tabloid.

Sure enough a search of their site of images using the victim's name and age finds a story with the photo [7] including the details cut off in the other tabloid's front page. (It is possible the other tabloid has or had it somewhere on their webpage too. It's very hard to know precisely what was and wasn't available after such a long time most of the time.)

Note since the victim at the time wanted the photo to be published, it's possible it was also shown elsewhere so there may be multiple sources depending on what you mean by 'original source'. Aftonbladet lists SJUKHUSET as a source. I think this probably just means it came from some hospital (which makes sense since it looks like it was taken in a hospital) rather than the TV programme Se:Sjukhuset (TV-serie) but don't know for sure. Since the victim wanted the photo to be published at the time, it's possible that she was the direct source for some places rather than it coming directly from the hospital. (It seems likely the hospital or whoever took the photo would have provided it to her on request.)

P.S. Many years later, the same photo became that of the victim an an alleged attack in the UK [8] showing why you should take great care with sources which don't properly document their work and don't have a reputation for fact checking or accuracy.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough answer. And yes, I know that this picture (of a young blond female with big blue eyes, bloody) can and is used by scaremongers. Hofhof (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do farmers pay taxes?

Their income seems to be the plants they grow. So, how do they pay taxes? Are they allowed to pay in terms of plants, or does the government estimate the value of the harvest? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell us which specific jurisdiction. The world is a varied place, and helping you research tax codes in a specific place requires you to tell us which place you want to find the tax codes for; also note that some countries like the US or UAE are likely to have different codes in each federated state, so if you want US, you'll need to specify a specific state as well.--Jayron32 04:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see. Most humans in the world live in Asia. I'll pick India. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The National government of India does not collect taxes on agriculturally products. However India, like the US, is a federation. Individual Indian states have their own tax codes, so some may collect agricultural taxes. Any other jurisdictions you need help finding?--Jayron32 05:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is a tax code? How is it used? Why does it have to be a code? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of laws, a "code" is the term for the body of laws on a topic. See Code of law for a more comprehensive definition. The term "tax code" means "the body of laws dealing with taxation". For a concrete example, the full body of active laws issued by the US federal government is called the United States Code. The use of the word "code" in this context is unrelated to other uses, such as a synonym for cipher.--Jayron32 06:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note however our article Income tax in India#Income partly agricultural and partly business activities suggests certain agricultural products (tea, coffee and latex/cenex) are part counted as business income so may incur income tax. I presume this is mentioned in the act above, but it talks about various boards so I couldn't be bothered working out what it's referring to. But although uncited our article is specific enough I strongly suspect it is or was right. Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Usually they sell their crops for money, some of which they use to pay taxes. Modern governments don't want to be paid tax in kind because it's way too much trouble for them. One exception, noted in the tax in kind article, is North Korea from 1947 to 1966, but then North Korea isn't your average state. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't of course unique to governments. It's likely that anyone else the farmer is involved with e.g. those supplying fertiliser, equipment or seeds, etc expect the same. Even workers tend to want cash salaries. Nil Einne (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would add this isn't unique to farmers either. People in manufacturing or mining may be producing something. They make an income by selling it. Not just to pay those who help them make that income, but also because if they want clothes (for example) for personal use unrelated to their work, these people generally want money not crops. Barter exists and there's perhaps a renewed focus on it, but even considering the developing world, exchanges generally involve money or some other intermediary in some form, not barter. ([9] suggests 15% of international trade is on a non cash basis although this doesn't actually tell us much about how much farmers use it. [10] suggests 20% up to 40% in Brazil of operational costs via barter. Don't know about India, I see many sources e.g. [11] [12] [13] discussing an increase after the cash crunch due to the demonetisation but not estimates of percentages.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Of course before anyone points it out, yes one difference between goverments and others is that you may be able to find someone who will give you clothes etc for your crops. If the government expects cash and as said by others they nearly always do, then you have little chance convincing them to accept your crops. Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... and, of course, not all farmers sell crops. Some have an income only from animals, so there used to be an arrangement with grocery suppliers that the bill would be paid only when animals were sold. For modern farmers, a bank loan is more common. Here in the UK, farmers' taxes are usually paid after the end of the financial year, so wise farmers save money from crops or animals to cover this commitment. Dbfirs 10:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the United States enter so many wars?

Back in social studies class, I learned that the United States didn't want to enter any of the European conflicts until they were drawn in during the Great War. Then, the Great Depression and World War II followed. After World War II, the US entered the Korean War and the Vietnam War and the War on Terror and the Iraqi War. I'm not really sure if the United States has ever been in peacetime or if it has always engaged in war. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They were terrified of communism. Recently, however, they've been dialling back their involvement. 86.2.21.152 (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As George Orwell famously explained, war is peace. Or at least it is now. (that was actually the second seal of the Revelation; see spontaneous symmetry breaking, though really I mean the reverse...) Is the U.S. at war in Pakistan? Nobody knows! Is the Pakistan government for or against us? Nobody knows! See Drone strikes in Pakistan. Is the Mexican Drug War a war or law enforcement? You tell me... your guess is as good as anyone's. Some relevant theory in low intensity conflict. Wnt (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Great Depression was not a war, although it may have felt like that to many people. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Countries like France, Germany or the UK also entered many wars, but unlike them the US is a superpower, so it historically wanted to influence foreign affairs by military means. This was especially true during the Cold War. But there was a period of the United States non-interventionism. Brandmeistertalk 11:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also From Korea to Vietnam: The Origins and Mindset of Postwar U.S. Interventionism. Alansplodge (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have a detailed List of wars involving the United States, if you want a timeline. As for the lack of peacetime:

While ignoring various wars, the above list suggests that in 242 years of existence (1775-2017), the United States is almost always involved in one or more wars. It has not seen real peacetime since 1955. Dimadick (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding war and peace, you should always consider that war is the normal, very easy to happen (you just need one belligerent to start one) and peace the exception (it takes two, sometime more, to agree into peace). So the question is rather: why would USA be at peace, when you have so many weak nations to prey upon, and so many domestic (racial/political/economical) troubles that war distract from ? Gem fr (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to our Vietnam War article, the US began sending military advisors into French Indochina in 1950, with the creation of the Military Assistance and Advisory Group (MAAG). However, President Eisenhower resisted putting American units on the ground without British support. In May 1961, President Kennedy sent 400 Special Forces troops to Vietnam to train soldiers. By November, the number had increased to 16,000.DOR (HK) (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there war criminals and war crimes?

Back in the olden days, I thought warriors on the winning side could just take the land, rape the women, kill the men and children, or enslave all enemies and their relatives. Captured prisoners of war could be tortured to death. Nowadays, why are the losing side's enemies of war taken to trial and not, for example, sentenced to a life of indentured servitude or slavery for the winning side? Isn't war supposed to mean fight, torture, kill, loot, rape, and dominate the opponent? 2600:387:0:805:0:0:0:56 (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're sad to see that go there's still countries on this Earth where they still do that. Heck, there's still countries where they not only kill the children but force them to beat their parents to death, kill with machine guns, be raped and they even rape babies. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of War crime emerged at the international level with the adoption of the treaties during the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. Trials of Axis war criminals established the Nuremberg principles and the Geneva Conventions in 1949 established that states could exercise universal jurisdiction over such crimes. Blooteuth (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The roots go back much further -- see Peace and Truce of God. Though Quaker-like Christian pacifism has long been rare, the overall concept of just war theory emerged from an idea that these things were evils to be avoided. Wnt (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in How to Fight Like a Gentleman – Six Astounding Rules of War From the 18th Century if you skip the anti-Trump polemic at the beginning. Alansplodge (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of war is to force another government to do something that you want and they don't. That could be "give us your land", "trade with us on our terms", "stop supporting our enemies", or "stop trying to make us do all those things". Merely killing/maiming their soldiers and civilians isn't necessarily the most effective way to do that, and may actually be counterproductive (if you want them to change sides and support you, or produce stuff for you). Furthermore, you ultimately have to make peace with the enemy, and (often) live/work with them afterwards. A lot of things that are banned as war crimes are things that either aren't actually very effective at defeating the enemy, and/or would make it more likely they do the same to you, and/or would make it harder to make peace at the end. For example, torture isn't a very reliable way of getting information, and most soldiers probably don't know enough to make a difference anyway. But if you torture your prisoners, people will be less likely to surrender to you. (Ditto for any other mistreatment of prisoners). Conversely, faking a surrender in order to sneak-attack the enemy tends to encourage them to kill people rather than taking prisoners. Finally, to do well in a war, you generally need the support of both your own population and of allies. If one side is being particularly brutal or evil, then they are less likely to get such support, and their opponents are more likely to.
I would say this goes back at least to the Roman Empire. They figured out that if they wiped out all their enemies completely, this left just burned land of no use to them in the long term. Better to co-opt the enemy, by giving them some degree of self-rule, in exchange for tribute, providing soldiers for the Empire, etc. For example, they tried this in ancient Israel, until a series of rebellions led them back to the "kill them (almost) all and enslave any survivors" concept. Even the NAZIs figured out that they needed allies and co-opted many local factions to gain them, rather than wipe them all out. StuRat (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the article on prisoner of war: "Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, some guerrilla fighters, and certain civilians. It applies from the moment a prisoner is captured until he or she is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners and states that a prisoner can only be required to give their name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable)."

By the way, why do you assume wartime sexual violence only targets adult women? Underage girls are frequently targeted "by the use of sexual violence, including as a tactic of war to humiliate, dominate, instil fear in, disperse and/or forcibly relocate civilian members of a community or ethnic group.". Rapes of male victims are more rare, but not unusual either:

  • "The rape of men by other men is also common in war. A 2009 study by Lara Stemple found that it had been documented in conflicts worldwide; for example, 76% of male political prisoners in 1980s El Salvador and 80% of concentration camp inmates in Sarajevo reported being raped or sexually tortured. Stemple concludes that the "lack of attention to sexual abuse of men during conflict is particularly troubling given the widespread reach of the problem". Mervyn Christian of Johns Hopkins School of Nursing has found that male rape is commonly underreported."
  • "According to a survey published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2010, 30% of women and 22% of men from the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo reported that they had been subject to conflict-related sexual violence. Despite the popular perception that rape during conflict is primarily targeted against women, these figures show that sexual violence committed against men is not a marginal occurrence. The lack of awareness for the magnitude of the rape of men during conflict relates to chronic underreporting. Although the physical and psychological repercussions from rape are similar for women and men, male victims tend to demonstrate an even greater reluctance to report their suffering to their families or the authorities." Dimadick (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"why are the losing side's enemies of war taken to trial and not, for example, sentenced to a life of indentured servitude or slavery for the winning side?"
Obviously because this would look like some barbaric, old-fashioned, Might makes right domination, as you point out.
nowadays it looks far better to have such things done under the guise of justice, to kill or jail people not just because you are the winner, but because they are filthy war criminals (which they are, of course, aren't they?) and you are a good, justice serving, guy.
I don't know of any instance when a victorious nation sued for war crime it's own loyal military (In some instance, losing nations did sue their military, just like the winning nation would), or got its leaders sued. Do you?
No, no leader or military of a winning side was ever sued, even when having committed quite obvious war crimes. You can bet that Churchill and Roosevelt would had been sentenced to death for war crimes, had they lost the war. There are enough evidence of their implication in bombing of civilian for no military purpose. And Stalin, of course...
And, on the other hand, you bet that Saddam Hussein or Bashar al-Assad could/would stage war crime trials just as Stalin had.
Bottom line: it is just a matter of show
Gem fr (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Flynn

Will Michael Flynn be granted immunity?4.16.42.123 (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article says immunity was refused, but "a compromise" was reached, however the article does not expand on the nature of the agreement. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about this particular case. But a common compromise in this sort of situation is some sort of formal guarantee that any evidence they provide (in this case, to the senate) in such a setting will not be admissible in any trial against them. This doesn't stop them from being potentially charged based on other evidence. I know in many jurisdictions, there are laws allowing such guarantees to be given (such as when a person is ordered to testify against a co-accused), but I'm not sure if the U.S. Senate has any similar power? Come to think of it, wouldn't testimony given in a Senate hearing fall under Parliamentary privilege, preventing it from being used as evidence in a criminal trial? Can someone clarify this point? Does Parliamentary privilege protect incriminating evidence of criminal activity given in parliament from being used in a criminal trial, or even as evidence to get a judge to issue a search warrant? Eliyohub (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eliyohub Only the actual members of the parliament/legislature are protected by parliamentary privilege. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: here is a useful rundown on immunity law and Flynn, which covers the issues I've raisd, and will provide some general answers. Eliyohub (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what is the circle pattern on the chinese shirt

https://tanailee.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/traditional-chinese-ethnic-dress-men-kung.jpg http://image.dhgate.com/albu_402472539_00/1.0x0.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.212.253 (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what they are called, but they look a lot like the circular flowery works of art you find in Chinese paper cutting. Some websites selling clothes call them "Chinese folk circle". They seem to be a popular pattern on tangzhuangs. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's similar to a Japanese mon described as a crest.
Sleigh (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Such clothing is traditional changshan, but don't know about the circles. Brandmeistertalk 10:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not the one shown in the photo though. Changshan is the robe - the jacket is the "riding jacket" (馬褂). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some information about the symbolism of circular patterns (in ceramics) is at The Meaning of China's Most Ancient Art (p. 136) by Anneliese Bulling. Alansplodge (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are called "tuan" (團) embroidery. "Tuan" means things gathered into a ball, e.g. a ball of wool or a cluster of flowers. The specific pattern is usually identified by the subject matter, e.g. 團龍, "balled dragon", is a circular pattern of a dragon, such as used on emperors' robes, and 團花, "balled flower" or "balled pattern", is either a circular pattern of flower patterns or just any generic balled pattern. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 3

What are some of the most prescient predictions of WW2, Naziism, Pearl Harbor, the Great Depression or the Holocaust?

Any kind of prediction: Fiction (i.e. a 1919 film), persuasion (i.e. a politician's quote), speculation etc. Doesn't have to include more than one (i.e. a novel with a great depression but no world war(s), or Germans invade Europe but Japan's against them like WW1 or unimportant like pre ~1900). Napoleon predicted China two centuries in advance after all so it can be done. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... just searching, I find those who give great credit to Winston Churchill - [14]. There are others who make much of the Three Secrets of Fatima, though I have to say so far what I've seen about it seems unimpressive at first glance. Then there are other things like this that seem like pure chaff. H.G. Wells gets some credit here. Presumably there are more impressive predictions by less known people that do not come up as quickly in a search... and I have scarcely looked. Wnt (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Great Dictator was made in 1940, so perhaps more of a condemnation of the (then) current events than a prediction of future events. Still, well worth watching. StuRat (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The best known for non-fiction is probably John Maynard KeynesSeraphim System (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read about Billy Mitchell. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Handwerk, Brian. "The Many Futuristic Predictions of H.G. Wells That Came True". Smithsonian. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A975:997:5261:F444 (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, read to the end -- that was not a prediction at all! The Japanese actually copied that attack plan, having been free to observe it! Moral of that story is, don't look for vulnerabilities if you don't plan to pay as much attention to them as the enemy does, I guess. This also pretty much rules out looking for any post-1932 Pearl Harbor prediction since it could be based on the same source. Wnt (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nostradamus predicted Adolf Hitler, although he gave the name as Hisler. 79.73.134.123 (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the article The Shape of Things to Come (1933), H. G. Wells correctly predicted that there will be a World War II, but was wrong on how the War would work out:

  • "Wells predicted a Second World War breaking out with a European conflagration from the flashpoint of a violent clash between Germans and Poles at Danzig. Wells set the date for this as January 1940 – quite close to the actual date of September 1939. But where Wells' imagined war sharply diverges from the actual WWII is in Poland proving a military match for Nazi Germany – and they engage in an inconclusive war lasting ten years. More countries are eventually dragged into the fighting, but France and the Soviet Union are only marginally involved, the United Kingdom remains neutral, and the United States fights inconclusively with Japan. The Austrian Anschluss happens during, rather than before, the war. Czechoslovakia avoids German occupation and its president, Edvard Beneš, survives to initiate the final "Suspension of Hostilities" in 1950."
  • "Wells correctly predicted that the coming war would involve both sides launching heavy bombings of each other's main cities, but was wrong in assuming that land fighting would quickly bog down as in WWI, and that the idea of using tanks to develop a war of movement would come to naught. Wells predicted that submarines would become the launching pads for "air torpedos" (i.e. missiles) carrying weapons of mass destruction, enabling a country to threaten the destruction of places halfway around the world – which actually happened, though not in WWII but decades later."
  • "Wells' predicted war ends with no victor but total exhaustion, collapse and disintegration of all the fighting states and of the neutral countries, equally affected by the deepening economic crisis. The whole world descends into chaos: nearly all governments break down, and a devastating plague in 1956 and 1957 kills a large part of humanity and almost destroys civilisation." Dimadick (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This well known newspaper cartoon shows a little boy, labelled as "1940 Class", crying over the Treaty of Versailles as the principal "instigators" of the treaty leave the venue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I bet Heinrich Heine, writing in 1823, would have been surprised at the fact that his prophecy applied to his own compatriots: "Dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen. Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings." Sadly. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 4

Aristotle conversion to Judaism and letter to Alexander

Hi, this is my first time using the Reference desk. So if I've formatted this incorrectly, or this is too long, or any other thing I've done utterly wrong, I apologize. I've seen possibly dubious references to a letter that was supposedly written by Aristotle to Alexander the Great about his denouncing his own works and converting to Judaism. I know that the letter is written, in full, in the book Meam Loez (a Jewish commentary on Tanach.) I was wondering about the validity of the claim. I have found that the source of the Meam Loez is another book, Shalshelet HaLabalah, but I haven't been able to go any deeper, nor do I know how much validity these sources get in the historical community. I saw on this website: https://www.jerusalemlife.com/?p=3749 the claim that it was posted on Wikipedia before but was taken down (you can also read the letter there, as well as another version from it's source). So my question is as follows: How believable is this source and is there any reason to believe that Aristotle converted to Judaism near the end of his life? And, if it's not a believable source, why not? -- Askaqp (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to visit that site here is an excerpt from the English version of the Meam Loez (originally written in Ladino):

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


″There is a true story of a great philosopher renowned throughout the world, whose name was Aristotle – that at the time of his old age he wrote a letter to his student Alexander the Macedonian – the king of Greece (See source Shalshelet HaKabalah) this text:

Blessed is Hashem [the G-d of the Jews – the sole G-d of the universe and of all], that opens eyes of the blind, that shows the sinners the straight path. He is exalted with praises that are worthy of Him – For I do not know how to praise Him upon all of the mercy and great kindness that he bestowed upon me.

That he took me out of this foolishness that I was immersed in all the days of my life in dealing with wisdom of philosophy to explain everything according to nature – that’s understood through rationalization.

And I made many books on this wisdom – like the sand that is on the banks of the of the sea.

Until I was rebuked now by the mingling of my life with one (Jewish) sage from the sages of Israel. And in his speaking to me, he demonstrated his tremendous wisdom.

And I recognized the high level of the holy Torah, that was given at the Mount Sinai.

And he drew my heart with the words of the Torah that showed me and explained to me true novelties and wonders that were done [by Hash-m, the G-d of Israel].

And I was uncivilized that I did not understand that most of the things that are driven by the Holy One Blessed be He [Hashem – the G-d of Israel] in a wondrous manner that’s external to the way of nature.

And from the time that I saw this – I took to heart to expound and to investigate [or fathom] the wisdom of the Torah. For all of its words are founded on foundations of truths, and it is not like the wisdom of philosophy that is vanity.

And therefore, you my student – Alexander the the great king – Do not push my works [for people to learn them]– not you and not my fellow philosophers.

For if it was in my hands to gather all of the books that I authored using this wisdom, surely I would burn them with fire in order that they would not remain any part of them.

However, this matter is not in my hands for my books are spread throughout the world and it’s impossible to gather them all.

And I know well of the stringent punishment that my Creator will punish me for this great sin that I transgressed. That I lost my time with my own hands and that I caused the multitude to sin.

Therefore, my son Alexander I wrote this letter in order to inform you, you and all of your fellows – that most of the things that people want to explain in the way of nature in order that they will be understood by the intellect are matters of falsehood.

For surely, the Holy One Blessed be He (Hashem – G-d), He is the Solution to the world and He leads it with great force.

And because of my fate that caused my books to be spread throughout the western lands – I hereby inform on all of them – that one should not waste his time with them. Do not look at them and do not touch them with your hands. For it is a great sin to waste time on my books of philosophy – for it is a lie that has no legs [to stand upon]. And now I have saved my soul with this that I proclaimed my error and my guilt – it [the Law of the Torah’s punishment] is not as stringent upon me for the past [faults of mine] for I didn’t know.

However now that I revealed this matter to the creatures – that I lived in error and my heart burns for the time that I destroyed with vanities. Woe is to those that their hearts continue [to follow] after my books. Surely under them will be the grave.

And know that according to what that same sage taught me – I found many matters in the book of proverbs that King Solomon authored that a person should not be drawn after the wisdom of philosophy in his saying to “Guard yourself from a strange woman from a foreign female whose words are smooth.” (Mishlei / Proverbs 7:5)

Woe to the eyes that thus they see. Woe to the ears that they thus is what they hear. Woe is to me that I destroyed my body and my strength – for these damaging matters. And this that you praise me by saying that my fame has spread throughout the world because of the books that I made. And they admire me with great admiration. Surely death is better than this – that my books are spread throughout the world. Surely those that are diligent in [the learning of] the Torah will inherit [eternal] life in the world to come.

And those that deal with my books will inherit purgatory. And even I am prepared to be punished for them all. And the reason why I did not write you this letter before now, for I suspected that you would be angry at me and you would do me evil. However now, I decided to say, to inform you of this.

For I know that before this letter of mine will arrive in your hand I will have already been placed in an ark of wood – for I reached the end of my days. And Peace from the Teacher Aristotle – that separates from [life in] the world – to Alexander the great king of Greece.″

I added a collapse box. Here's links to Aristotle and ancient Israel, for anyone who wants to research this further. StuRat (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What a load of woe'ing. Investigate it if you want to find out why such tripe is written but it was not Aristotle. I don't even see how it could be derived from Aristotle using Chinese whispers. Dmcq (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Askaqp -- In Aristotle's generation, the Jews were really not well-known to Greeks. The majority of Jews lived in a small landlocked sub-province of the Persian Empire ("Yahud" or Judea), and were not long-distance traders, did not have a cosmopolitan outlook, and did not speak the Greek language, so that Greeks rarely encountered them, and certainly didn't commonly have long discussions about religion and philosophy with them. Some Jews lived in Mesopotamia, where they were even less accessible to Greeks, while others lived in southern Egypt (but do not seem to have been consistent monotheists -- see Elephantine papyri).
At a later date, Jews and Greeks very commonly interacted with each other in the streets of the city of Alexandria in Egypt, the Hebrew scriptures were translated into the Greek language there (Septuagint), and there came to be groups of Hellenistic "God-fearers" who admired Judaism in various ways, but were not willing to formally convert (which involved renouncing one's previous ethnicity and taking on a number of ritual obligations, and of course circumcision for males). However, none of this was true in Aristotle's time... AnonMoos (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotelian philosophy was, in its day (which can post-date Aristotle by many many centuries) seen by Judaism as its main philosophical opponent. This theoretical antagonism is a mainstay of other works, eg the Kuzari. I wouldn't assume that even the author was thinking that this was more than a non-literal literary [see what I did there?] device, but I'm no expert on the Meam Loez. I'll ask for input at WT:JUDAISM. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Me'am Lo'ez is a religious work of rabbinical Judaism. It would likely be a bad source for such claims. Debresser (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carians

Churchward's map in Mu (lost continent) shows two populations, Negroid and Carian, spreading out over the rest of the world once Mu sank. In his writings, are these Carians related to the Carians of Anatolia? Rojomoke (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely. In his book The Children of Mu
(found on the site linked as the first entry under External Links in the James Churchward article – http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_autor_churchward.htm#Books-Treaties)
he writes in Chapter II The Eastern Lines:
"In addition to the black line there was a white race known as the Caras or Carians who are the Greeks today."
and in Chapter VIII The Greeks:
"The Greeks under their ancient names, however, had passed through tens of thousands of years of trials and tribulations before the first Olympiad. Their first settlements were made in Asia Minor, the Balkan Peninsula and adjacent islands if there were any at that time.
and further on:
"As far as can be traced, the original Greeks came from Central America via Atlantis and made their first settlements in Asia Minor, the lower part of the Balkans, and on what islands there were then of the Grecian Archipelago.
In Central America I find them called Kars, Karas, Caras, and Carians. They spoke their own dialect of the Maya tongue. Some of their American settlements were within the boundaries of the Mayax Empire. They, however, extended themselves far south on both the Eastern and Western Coasts of South America.
The first knowledge of the Carians and their colonies is found in old Maya records where I find the following settlements spoken of: along the shores of the Caribbean Sea, on some of the West Indian Islands, and three settlements on the East Coast of South America.
One record dates back beyond 16,000 years; how far back beyond this date, I am not prepared to say.
From Central America I next pick them up in Asia Minor, the Balkan Peninsula and adjacent islands. The Greek legendary history says that their first settlements were along the Mediterranean shores of Asia Minor. The Carians are as bad as the Irish, they never would stay put. As an example, Gaelic, the Irish tongue, is spoken in Tipperary, Ireland, the Basque Province of Spain, and in Nepal, the northern part of India."
Churchward's incompetence in comparative linguistics is painfully obvious in the last quoted sentence. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.89.162 (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rojomoke -- I have no idea how Carians got dragged in, but you can read in chapter 14 of Martin Gardner's 1957 book Fads and Fallacies: In the Name of Science how James Churchward was kind of a second-rate low-rent Ignatius Donnelly. Churchward's books were inherently less credible than Donnelly's, though standards of credibility had tightened from the time Donnelly wrote to when Churchward did. Or as Gardner puts it: "The Mu books are uniformly crude in writing, and such a mishmash of geological and archaeological errors that they are widely regarded, even by other Atlantean and Mu scholars, as a deliberate hoax." However, the Churchward books did give Robert Plant his so-called "Zoso" "rune"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number of breasts/litter size

Moved to the Science desk. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Successful people and risk taking

Why is it that the most successful people in business seem to have taken at least 1 major career risk which could have destroyed their entire career? Whether this is spending a lot of money on something unproven, implementing a new idea with a high risk or even making unorthodox job moves (such as taking a pay cut or moving to an unrelated field)? 82.132.229.246 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[15] Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although this reference desk is "not a forum", I'll take the liberty of noting that there are plenty of risk takers who are not successful -- you just never hear about them. Evidently, they don't write books about how to fail (or, if they did, those books failed to achieve success). — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:65B0:9134:56E3:14CB (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was a book about this: [16] 79.73.134.123 (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous books about "failing your way to success", but they seem to have failed to come to your attention.  :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very apt xkcd comic covering this -- Q Chris (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So apt, in fact, that Sagittarian Milky Way already mentioned it. Dragons flight (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. But SMW didn't mention it, he said something like [23] - you only know it is xkcd if you hover or click on it. -- SGBailey (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A very large part of being successful is pure luck, and you do need to buy a lottery ticket before winning in a lottery. If it wasn't so chancy then financial advisers would have a decent performance compared to dart throwing chimps. Dmcq (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You do not need to buy a lottery ticket to win the lottery. You only need to get a lottery ticket. You can receive one as a gift or find one that someone else lost. Purchasing a lottery ticket is only one method of receiving a ticket. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight, success makes decisions seem riskier. People can ask "what if" and give decisions that were made more mystique that they should have. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The financial advisers do no better than market tracking algorithms, and the algorithms don't levy management charges. What the OP is referring to is bravery, discussed by Seth Godin in his book "Purple Cow". [17] As he says on page 110,

These Purple Cows do an outrageous job. They work on high-profile projects. These people take risks, often resulting in big failures. These failures rarely lead to a dead end, though. They're not really risks, after all. Instead, they just increase the chances that these people will get an even better project next time.

July 5

Putting your back to a river (military)

I was looking at the Battle of Cowpens article and this passage jumped out at me: He knew untrained militiamen, which composed a large portion of his force, were generally unreliable in battle, and in the past had routed at the first hint of battle and abandoned the regulars. To eliminate that possibility, he defied convention by placing his army between the Broad and Pacolet Rivers, thus making escape impossible if the army was routed. This kind of deployment will be familiar to anyone who's read the Romance of the Three Kingdoms; at several points in the narrative some warlord or another snatches victory from the jaws of defeat by forcing their infantry to fight to the death in this manner. So here are a couple questions: is this an actual recognized tactic? Does it have a name? What are the odds that it was actually used in third-century China? (Everyone I know who's read the novel thinks it's romantic nonsense added after the fact.) -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Russians were known to have used special squads behind the front to capture and execute any deserters. However, note that this doesn't prevent surrender, and, if they think they will be treated better if captured by the enemy than they are treated by their own army, they might well do just that. Also, this "no retreat" strategy gets a lot of soldiers needlessly killed, and war materiel captured, so it only makes military sense when there's a huge surplus of soldiers and weapons/equipment on your side, and where the captured equipment won't be of use to the enemy and the captured soldiers won't switch sides. In general, these conditions do not exist, and killing large numbers of your own soldiers needlessly is also politically unacceptable, so retreating to a defensible position (say the other side of that river) is the better military strategy. StuRat (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the Battle of Stalingrad, "Hitlers orders to stand and fight to the last man, rather than to accept the principle of mobile defence, cost Germany an entire army". [18] Alansplodge (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good example. ...but there were multiple Hilters ? So he was cloned ! :-) StuRat (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]
The British Army has made a bit of a virtue of "mobile defence" over the centuries, and what many would look on as ignominious defeats are regarded as great feats-of-arms in Britain. The Retreat to Corunna, the Retreat from Mons and the Retreat to Dunkirk are all remembered with pride by the regiments that participated. General Alan Brooke made his reputation by his "skillful command" of a division during the latter withdrawal. It didn't always work out so well of course, a withdrawal the length of Malaya in 1941 led to the Fall of Singapore when there was nowhere left to retreat to. Alansplodge (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They should be proud of the retreat to Dunkirk and subsequent evacuation back to the UK, which preserved much of their army and may well have prevented invasion from NAZI Germany (along with the valiant RAF defense). StuRat (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Point of no return has several examples of this, including the Battle of Jingxing and the Battle of Naungyo. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As added bonuses, the first article calls it as "'fighting a battle with one's back facing a river' (背水一戰)", plus Jingxing was fought in 205 BC. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This tactic appears somewhere in The Art of War (5th century BC China), so it IS an actual recognized tactic, with 100% chance it was actually used in third-century China. In European warfare this was called "fight back against the wall", part of some sort of "no retreat, no surrender" tactic. Indeed, to properly work, it also require that the soldiers have no perspective to save themselves by surrendering to enemies, only victory or doom; obviously this condition is rarely met, making such fight very hazardous, hence rare.
Gem fr (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"It is not enough, says Sun Tzu, to render flight impossible... You will not succeed unless your men have tenacity and unity of purpose, and, above all, a spirit of sympathetic cooperation. This is the lesson which can be learned from the SHUAI-JAN" [[19]] ("the shuai-jan is a [mythical] snake that is found in the Ch'ang mountains. Strike at its head, and you will be attacked by its tail; strike at its tail, and you will be attacked by its head; strike at its middle, and you will be attacked by head and tail both"). The first sentence is not a direct quote from The Art of War but a commentary explaining Sun Tzu's somewhat abstruse language. Alansplodge (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But this brings up the obvious Q, if the soldiers "have tenacity and unity of purpose, and, above all, a spirit of sympathetic cooperation", then why do you need to block their escape to get them to fight ? ...unless their "unified purpose" is "get the heck out of here !" :-) StuRat (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's because not only the soldiers should have the spirit, but other soldiers must trust them to have it, and undoubtedly closing the rear way is effective in letting everyone know that the only way out is forward, and everyone share this belief. Gem fr (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that even when this strategy leads to victory, it may well be a Pyrrhic victory, if the casualties sustained are more costly than losing the land would have been. StuRat (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that if the enemy knows you do not allow your troops to retreat, they can use this info to wipe you out. The technique is to surround those troops that refuse to retreat, cut their supply lines, then wipe them out. The best defense to such an attack is to retreat to avoid encirclement, then bring up reinforcements and counter-attack, but refusal to ever retreat makes this defense impossible.
Another option for dealing with a well-entrenched enemy that refuses to retreat is to simply bypass them, and go on to attack easier and more critical targets. In the example of the river, just go around the defenders, cross the river in peace, and go on to attack their capital city, etc. One variation on this plan is for the attacker to leave a small force behind to keep the defenders occupied, so they don't figure out that the main force has bypassed them. Santa Anna should have used this strategy at the Battle of the Alamo rather than wasting his time, giving his enemy time to mobilize their troops ahead of him. StuRat (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UK Rail industry

Why is the UK rail industry so political in almost every sense of the word? Political as in heavy interest from government, the public, and media and also political in terms of internal industry politics. 2A02:C7D:B9B7:8700:7C19:57AF:13E3:AAA (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It comes down to the importance of the rail network to the British economy, which has meant that the railways could never be allowed to fail. In both World Wars, the Railway Executive Committee took control of the whole British network. At the end of both wars, the system was run down and in need of major investment. The solution after the first war was the Railways Act 1921 which forced the amalgamation of the numerous rail companies into the Big Four. After the second war, the situation was even worse, with bomb damage and machinery being worked almost to destruction. The solution then was Nationalisation in 1948. Those of us who remember British Rail in the 1960s and 1970s will know that it was an imperfect solution and Mrs Thatcher's Conservatives thought that Privatisation of British Rail would be a Good Thing and save the tax payer some cash to boot. Whether this turned out to be true or not is open to debate. Now that nice Mr Corbyn wants to nationalise the whole thing again. Watch this space. Alansplodge (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two clarifications there. First, note that "privatization" often refers to the transfer of an existing public business to the private sector, as was done with British Airways and the Canadian National Railways. What was done to British Rail was a much more far-reaching transformation, with many separate companies created and vertical integration (which had characterized railways more or less since the beginning) now prohibited. Second, it was John Major's Conservative government that did it, not Thatcher's. Of course, these points are irrelevant to 2A02:C7D's question. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I stand corrected. Mrs T had it on her wish-list but events intervened. Alansplodge (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A further complication was that the ownership of rail infrastructure (track, signalling, most stations) was transferred to another privately owned company called Railtrack, separate from the train operating companies. Safety improvements required after the Hatfield rail crash in 2000 led to Railtrack going into administration in 2001, and its assets and operations were transferred to state-owned Network Rail in 2002. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a further complication, that's part of what I was referring to about "vertical integration". --76.71.5.114 (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You'll find evidences of rail industry being "so political" everywhere in the world, not just in UK.
while all major industries draw political interest, rail industry draw more that comparable industry of transport (airlines companies, car manufacturers, ...), for 2 mains reasons
natural monopoly
Externality (railways are usually considered "green", and if some people switch from car to train, this benefit to car users because of reduced traffic, while the reverse is not true)
You also may find Rail subsidies and Financing of the rail industry in Great Britain of interest
Gem fr (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pledge of Allegiance

Moved from the Science Refdesk for obvious reasons

1. In American schools, at what grade do they start teaching kids to recite the Pledge of Allegiance?

2. Some people told me that only American citizens are required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Is this true? Do the teachers instruct the non-citizens to remain seated and read a book or something? There's also the practical problem of differentiating who is a citizens and who is not; the teachers aren't USCIS after all. What if the the kids are too young to understand the concept of "citizenship"? Scala Cats (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1)Usually 1st grade. But it wouldn't surprise me if some kindergartens went through it as well.
2)In theory, nobody is required to participate. (See the legal challenges section in the article.) If students or their parents objects, they're supposed to be allowed to sit out.
Teachers are not supposed to be singling out non-citizens, and I'm pretty sure it would cause quite a controversy if they did. Perhaps the people who told you that noticed that some students sat out, and came up with their own theory as to why? ApLundell (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, yes, people can sit it out if they object. But 99% of the time they just do what the other kids do because they don't want to be picked on.
In practice, teacher don't know the citizenship of their pupils. So do they go:
1. "Everyone, recite this."
2. "Everyone, recite this. But if you're not American then you don't have to."
3. "Everyone, recite this. But if you don't want to for whatever reason, you don't have to."
I'm interested in what actual instructions the teachers give to their pupils.
If the teachers make an exception for non-Americans, then some people will be very pissed because they see it as discrimination and compare it to shit like this[20].
If the teachers don't make an exception for non-Americans, then some people will be very pissed because they see it as the American school system brainwashing their kids. Going by the laws of some country, reciting the American Pledge of Allegiance could be construed as a very serious crime.
Meanwhile, the simple public school teacher is caught between a rock and a hard place with seemingly no way to placate both sides. Scala Cats (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Non-participation isn't as unusual as you think. There are a few religious groups that don't participate including Jehovah's Witnesses, which aren't uncommon. (It's also not too uncommon for atheists to sit out in protest of the "one nation, under God" line.)
The initial instructions from teachers tend to be to explain the pledge on the first day of school, and mention that you don't have to do it if your parents told you not to. No problem. (For older kids who make their own decisions, no instructions are necessary because they've been in school for years, so it's never the teachers' responsibility to explain why you might not want to do say the pledge.)
It's really not an issue unless some teacher decides to be an ultra-patriot and force students to participate. Which happens from time to time.
ApLundell (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen foreign students have an issue with the pledge. The ones that I've seen sit out are Jehovah's Witnesses. They won a suit in 1950 claiming that it was against their protected rights to not pledge allegiance to anything except God. Then, in 1954, "Under God" was added to the pledge, but the Jehovah's Witnesses still sit out. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My mother told me about a case, well after that suit, where a Jehovah's Witness would refuse to say the pledge and the teacher would say he was unpatriotic, ask what was wrong with him, and convinced the kids to join in bullying him socially.
It's important to view the Pledge of Allegiance in the context of school prayer - originally, the kids would say one prayer to the Church (the Lord's Prayer) and one prayer to the State. Then the Supreme Court cut out the Christian one. The final decision on school prayer was in 1963 (according to the article).
By the 1970s teachers were more laid back - kids could object of their own volition, and the line was that you didn't have to say the pledge but you had to stand for it. By that point the context was much weakened (I mean, as a kid you didn't realize you were praying, you were just saying something for no reason) and the thinking of a kid like me was just that if they didn't believe you the first ten times you promised, what's the point of promising again? It didn't take any hardcore religious reason. Sometimes I'd say it but twist around the words to something stupid and nobody cared. But I don't know if kids have that kind of freedom now, given how nasty everything has gotten. Wnt (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Constitutionally speaking, no student can be compelled to recite the Pledge. However, the teacher can be compelled to lead it, if it's part of their responsibilities as outlined by the state government. Also, it's not a prayer, possibly aside from the "under God" part (for which you can maybe blame Lincoln). And it used to be more personal: "I pledge allegiance to MY flag..." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lincoln? Lincoln died in 1864. Congress added "under God" in 1954 because the mood of the nation at the time seemed to indicate that it would look good come election time. I see no reason to assume that anyone in Congress was thinking about Lincoln at the time. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1865, actually. And I was referring to his famous Gettysburg Address, in which he is said to have added "under God" to the text at the last moment. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some friends of mine moved to the US (N or S Carolina) about 25 years ago for work. It took them about 6 months to sort out the pledge with the school the children went to - the eventual decision being that they would stand in silence whilst the others were reciting the pledge. Apparently the school took a long time to understand that some people might not want to say it. -- SGBailey (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 6

NFL football team doctors

What percentage of team doctors in the nfl were formerly military doctors? also, has there been any speculation in the media that team doctors might face civil or criminal penalties if they had knowingly deceived players about the danger of getting dementia from head injuries? thanks.64.134.223.214 (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really an answer, but I think some general background regarding medical accountability can be gleaned from the case of Purdue Pharma (see also [21]). I think the "new nonaddictive opiate" scam has been run four or five times over the past two centuries; this time the government managed to seize a fraction of the take, and 400 hours of community service. Wnt (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where the question about being former military doctors comes from or how it has any relevance. The importance is that the doctors used by NFL team be trained in sports medicine, not battlefield trauma, because that is the field they need to intervene in. It's not a full-time job either, so team doctors usually have a medical practice on the side. Whether or not they served in the military is immaterial. --Xuxl (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am the OP.-Military service is certainly immaterial to the second question(about legal repercussions) that I asked, but it definitely isn't immaterial to me! I have a personal interest in finding out more about whether what seem to me to be callous attitudes among team doctors and workmans comp doctors come from previous military medical practice and the military triage type of thinking.64.134.234.17 (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Concussion can occur in either area - a lot of military injuries are "mild traumatic brain injury" [22] and some references in [23] seem to suggest the same for sports. The OP's suggestion that doctors in either area might be tempted to downplay concussion for their employers' benefit seems like a reasonable idea, though by nature it would seem hard to prove, since the standard of care in any industry is the standard of care in that industry. Wnt (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The NFL and the NFL Players Association include medical liability (especially concussion liability) in the NFL player's agreement signed by both sides. It is an extensive document, full of legal speak. The take-away is that the NFL reduced liability for concussions (and general medical liability) to cases of extreme negligence while the players got better health care coverage and more concussion rules. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hanging Gardens of Babylon

Are the Hanging Gardens of Babylon an early implementation of an Elevated park? -- SGBailey (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are, quite obviously, Hanging Garden. This article (as of now) do NOT link to Elevated park, and i don't feel it should (while i think it should link to terrace and mound)?
Now, draw you own conclusion
Gem fr (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Terraces seems the more likely structure, though there is very little evidence to show what they looked like. Wymspen (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at our article and was quite impressed. We currently quote a wide range of ancient sources, all of which are in practically perfect agreement about the construction and dimensions (400 feet on either side) of the Gardens, and also seeming in agreement with the ancient bas-relief of the Nineveh gardens. So the trees were growing atop wide stone platforms that sat upon four pillars each coming together in arches, with the roots visible (in some way I don't fully understand) in places between them. The floor was made watertight with bitumen/asphalt reinforced with reeds, brick and mortar, and lead; Archimedes screws were used to bring water up from an aqueduct. I had no idea that the design was so well known. I think this pretty clearly qualifies as an elevated park, at least for Refdesk purposes - you could practically rebuild it from these instructions, and it ought to work just as well, and have it decay just as quickly once the favorite wife no longer is in the picture. You might encounter hindrances from WP:NOR policy if you edit the article, but this isn't the place to discuss that aspect of it (use the talk page for that). Wnt (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be some possible traces of the aqueducts remaining in Nineveh (if ISIL didn't destroy them). Also, it should be explained that at the time, Nineveh was briefly the capital of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. However, Babylon is the more widely known ancient capital city of the region, so the story of the hanging gardens being built in "the great capital" was moved there. StuRat (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From our Nineveh article: "At this time, the total area of Nineveh comprised about 7 square kilometres (1,730 acres), and fifteen great gates penetrated its walls. An elaborate system of eighteen canals brought water from the hills to Nineveh, and several sections of a magnificently constructed aqueduct erected by Sennacherib were discovered at Jerwan, about 65 kilometres (40 mi) distant.[18] The enclosed area had more than 100,000 inhabitants (maybe closer to 150,000), about twice as many as Babylon at the time, placing it among the largest settlements worldwide. Some scholars believe that the garden which Sennacherib built next to his palace, with its associated irrigation works, comprised the original Hanging Gardens of Babylon." StuRat (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather qualify an elevated park as a sort of hanging garden, than the other way round. My 2 cents. Gem fr (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 7

DEA constitutional mandate

What part of the US Constitution does the DEA claim allows it to enforce the laws (rather than leaving it to the states to decide) against drugs that are consumed in the state where they're produced, and thus don't fall under the Foreign and Interstate Commerce Clause? NeonMerlin 11:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a 2005 article which explains the fed's reasoning on this subject. It has to do with taxation:[24] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are black people more likely to engage in crime or more likely to be accused?

It is true that blacks do enter the US prisons more often than other races and get a lot of media coverage. In my email, I keep receiving alerts about crime incidents and I've noticed a number of supposedly black criminals. Are blacks more likely to commit crime because of poverty and desperation or are they more likely to get accused by white victims who may experience outgroup homogeneity? 2600:387:0:805:0:0:0:A4 (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Race and crime in the United States may help answer the question. Bear in mind that most people, regardless of race or circumstance, are not criminals. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have lived in Nigeria, England, Norway, Panama, and the United States. I have traveled to many other countries. The worldwide rule is that the poor are more likely to commit crimes and more likely to be accused of committing crimes. Depending on the leaning of the researcher, the correlation between poverty and crime can be as low as 0.4 (average correlation) [25] or much higher [26]. If your goal is to say "poor people aren't that bad", you find a way to reduce the correlation. If you want to say "we really need to give money to poor people so they will stop all their criminal behavior", you find a way to increase the correlation. Regardless, the correlation exists and, if you scan as many sources as you can find, you will certainly find mean correlation around 0.6. From there, you look at the correlation between poverty and race in the United States. It is not surprising that more black people are in poverty to a greater degree than white people. Therefore, depending on where you live, you may find that most of the poor in your area are black and, therefore, they contribute to most of the crime that you see in the news. When I was in London and Oslo, Pakastanis were known as the poorest of the poor and the main source of crime. In Panama, the Guaymí were the poor and blamed for most of the crime. In the US, it is the blacks. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The wealthy white folks commit crimes that are exponentially worse than the poor blacks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exponentially? Really? I'm not a prescriptionist, but this really ruins a perfectly fine word with a precise and important meaning.. At least financially, you are probably right in spirit, if not in language. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"exponentially worse"? You mean like murder? Do you have a cite for that claim? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the IP can give uncited personal opinions, there's no reason you and I can't too. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties for an estimate of mass-murder committed, to a significant degree, by the US elites (with willing support from the unwashed masses and a good part of the rest of the "Free World"). Or look at Slavery in the United States for historical examples of crimes, including mass kidnapping, rape, and murder, by the (at least somewhat) rich against some of the poor. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The question was not asking about the severity of crimes. It asked if black people are MORE LIKELY to commit a crime. I gave two resources to point out that poverty is correlated with crime rates. The claim "black people are more likely to commit a crime" is not correct as a worldwide absolute. Instead, the claim should be "poor people are more likely to commit a crime." That does not take into account the severity of any particular crime. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's a bogus question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is a statistical question. It is, in my opinion, no different than "Are black people more likely to have a heart attack?" or "Are black people more likely to become an NFL player?" In many cases, there is no correlation. In this case, the correlation only exists in areas where being black is highly correlated with being poor. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Race is always a controversial subject in the US. The question does mention the US. One response does mention the US, so it does support the original poster's conjecture that blacks are more likely to commit crimes, because they are poor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:0:805:0:0:0:A4 (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is different, because such stats lead to racist assumptions... like those of the Nazi troll immediately below. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I tried very hard to make it clear that it isn't about race. It is about poverty. Educate the person asking the question. He or she may comprehend that poverty is a vicious cycle that is hard to break out of. Then, he or she might decide to try and help people escape poverty. Racism is based heavily on ignorance. Refusing to educate a person leads to ignorance, which leads to racism. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's the explanation for gigantic thefts by white-collar criminals? It sure ain't poverty. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Greed and stupidity. Are you claiming that there is more white-collar crime than all the petty crimes committed by the poor? 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A reference (old, but I doubt it has changed much) [27]. White collar crime was 6% of the felonies. Even if it has tripled since then, it is still less than a quarter of all crime. It is not anywhere as pervasive as the claims above seem to make it. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the impact. A street thug impacts a small quantity of victims. A white collar thug can impact thousands or millions of victims. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is an entirely different question. I do not see why it is necessary to censor the question asked by changing it into a different question. I understand that you are very sensitive about race. I am not. I've experienced both sides, being black in Africa and being black in America. It doesn't bother me at all if someone wants to educate themselves. Why not help them understand the relationship between poverty and crime? Then, maybe, they will become a person who tried to help the poor instead of claiming that race is the source of all problems for the poor. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not separate. You can't isolate the pure stat and claim it's meaningful by itself. Also, you said the motive for fat-cat crime is "greed and stupidity". I would argue that characterization applies to nearly all crime. And there's also the question of how you define a "crime". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does Wikipedia have an article on "poverty tax"? I cannot find one. It is a negative term for taxes, regulations, fees, etc... that unfairly burden the poor who, because they cannot pay, end up being deemed criminals. I feel it is closely related to this question because it is an entire area of law-breaking that is, in my opinion, unjustly heaped upon the poor. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regressive tax? i.e. sales taxes and poll taxes. If you charge each person X dollars that's regressive. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Related are also the fees that they can charge prison inmates for room and board. [28].
If you don't pay, back to prison with you. (Accumulating even more debt!)
ApLundell (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article on Debtors' prison. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Complex industries.

Are all regulated, safety critical industries complex? So defence, utilities, transport etc? 82.17.228.192 (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Define "complex". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Define "industry" and "safety critical".Hofhof (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You might be thinking of the phrase "military industrial complex" and other related phrases. In that case, 'complex' is used as a noun meaning "An assemblage of related things; a collection".
ie: It just refers to the collection of all corporations that contribute to that industry. ApLundell (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Bavaria and Tyrol Region" or "Bavaria-Tyrol Region"/"Vatican City" or "Vatican"

I am working on a project, and in it, I am labeling pictures taken from different regions. In many instances, I cannot differentiate Tyrol in Austria from Bavaria in Germany, so I thought that it would be more convenient for me to just refer to them collectively as one region. It is of importance that I do not mislabel anything in this project, so just to be clear, is that region referred to as Bavaria-Tyrol?

Additionally, can the country "Vatican City" be accurately just be called "Vatican" or is the full form required? I am using a software to create an art piece including country names, and it is counting "Vatican" and "City" as two separate countries, which is why a shortened, one-word means of referring to the country would be preferable.

I realize how silly these questions likely sound, and I hope that nobody is offended by my stupidity, as that is never my intention.

HarryOtter (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does china one/two children policy worked/works?

Does china one/two children policy worked/works?

I mean, does people seriously stop having just because they will be taxed more? 177.92.128.26 (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=789494148"