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

January 22

Surnames as movie titles – feedback

On 10 January, here, I asked about movie titles that use only the surnames of characters, and I got lots of good ideas.

I’ve now made a half-decent list, which can be seen @ User:JackofOz/Surname-related film titles. I was right; there are lots more than I thought.

Feel free to update it. I may turn it into an article at some stage. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Forgiveness without repentance

From a perfunctory reading of non-Christian religious texts, specially Eastern, I got the impression that in some belief systems it's possible to forgive without repentance from the offender. Is that true? And, if yes, wouldn't that be a kind of dangerous move, since said offenders could attack you again? 88.14.192.250 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Forgiving someone does not necessarily equate to letting them out of prison. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Forgiveness doesn't imply trust. While the Pope forgave his would-be assassin, I doubt if he would meet with him without having him searched first. StuRat (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, in Christianity as well, one is supposed to forgive others without the need for repentence. See Matthew 18:21-22 and Matthew 6:12, 14-15 and Luke 6:37. Christian thinking makes it clear here, and in many other places, that Christians must forgive freely and willingly and without the expectance of the person you forgive to repent for their transgressions against you. This is quite different from how God reacts to such transgressions, but the OP implies that he's looking for someone "to forgive" another person, and not for a person to be forgiven by the Deity. Christianity, at least, makes a clear distinction between those two ideas. If that wasn't what the question was, I apologize, but that's how I read it. --Jayron32 02:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us", yes? No implied conditions with regard to the ones who trespassed against us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, forgiveness is 100% in the world of the forgiver. If I forgive, I make a choice to refuse to bear ill will: the person I am forgiving may be repentant or not, present or not, alive or not, may in fact be completely unaware of me and my resentment. Forgiving somebody is something I do to heal myself, and there is no other person involved. --ColinFine (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That's right. It's not saying "It's perfectly OK that you raped me and murdered my parents"; it's not a question of condoning the other's action at all. It's about your attitude to the person themself. Theoretically, a parent should never have to forgive a child, because their love for the child is unconditional; all their negative stuff should be directed to the child's actions, and the love for the child themself remains intact, no matter how badly they behave. It doesn't always work out that way in practice, though. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

For the OP, can you be a bit more specific than "Eastern"? And what did you read? IBE (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"I always find it easier to forgive someone after I finish burying them in my crawlspace." :-) StuRat (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Murder in Oxford

Could someone point me to where I could find a log of crimes in Oxford (U.K.) from last year? I want to know if an assault of some kind occurred by the river near St. Aldates Street in early 2011 (Jan. or Feb., maybe March)

I tried Googling "murder" and "Oxford" but apparently there's a movie called "the Oxford Murders" that ate up all my search results.

Thanks for any help. I put this under humanities because it's about history, albeit very recent history. Sorry for the gruesome subject. 128.239.174.246 (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)forsummer

In the U.S., newspapers frequently publish short, unedited summaries submitted by local police departments called a "police blotter." I have no idea if something similar happens in the U.K. But it might give you a lead. --Jayron32 02:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There was almost certainly an assault of some sort in the area in that time frame! You can adjust for month and crime-type, and area. If you have information about a crime, you can contact Crimestoppers anonymously [1], although obviously this was about a year ago now. 86.164.75.123 (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and if you know anything more specific, you could check to see if it was reported in the Oxford Mail or Oxford Times, but I think those results get swamped by the sad case of the woman with learning difficulties in Witney in January 2011. I mean, there is this, but it seems unlikely to be what you remember.86.164.75.123 (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Your simplest option is probably to just ask the police. You can find the contact details here (obviously, don't call 999, but you could email them or call the new 101 number and they will probably be able to help you). --Tango (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"The river by St. Aldates" is a bit of an odd description - St Aldates runs down to the river, crosses it on Folly Bridge, and then becomes the Abingdon Road. "Near Folly Bridge" would be the way local press would be much more likely to report it - you could try searching on assault + "folly bridge", murder + "folly bridge", which helpfully avoids the oxford + murder problem. Shimgray | talk | 22:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Economic left but social conservative and economic right but social liberal

Is there any political party that is economic left but social conservative meaning they lean left in economic issues and lean right in social issues? Is there any political party that is economic right but social liberal? -- 05:11, 22 January 2012‎ 70.31.18.111

In which country? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, which country you are talking about is very important. The definitions of "right" and "left" are relative to the norms for that country and those norms vary widely. For example, the Conservative Party (UK) is considered right-of-centre, on both economic and social issues, in the UK, but it would be considered very much on the left in the US on both issues (eg. they support public health care and have openly gay ministers in government). --Tango (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Libertarian Party (United States) seems to have the "keep government out of our lives" attitude, which means they are socially liberal (no government banning of drugs, prostitution, or homosexual relationships) and financially conservative (wanting a small government and minimal taxes). StuRat (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

In general, mainstream right wing parties in the Nordic Countries support redistribution of wealth as it is currently practiced in those countries, although when faced with financial problems they are more ready to compromise such policies than traditional left-wing parties. However, perhaps the best examples would be the newish populist parties such as True Finns and Danish People's Party which do actively support both wealth redistribution and conservative social values, and such policies have been very popular especially among workers disillusioned with traditional socialist parties. 188.117.11.111 (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The political compass generally rates fascist parties as being economically "left" but socially "right." Most of those have gone out of favor though there are still a few here and there. Libertarians are usually economically "right" but socially "left". But using "left" and "right" in this context is very confusing. See the political compass article for somewhat more useful terms (though even these run into difficulty). --Mr.98 (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Various Muslim or Islamist parties are socialist or left-leaning economically but have a strong component of Islamic morality that would accord with western Christian conservatives: Hamas in Palestine, the Egyptian Arab Socialist Party (which calls for Sharia law), and various more extreme Islamist movements (although very extreme Islamists oppose all political parties). The Respect Party in the UK is a mix of traditional (ie. small-c conservative) socialist and Muslim ideas; it tends to be more socially conservative than other socialist parties.

There are also lots of socialists who oppose liberal ideas like abortion, gay marriage, or drug legalisation, in leftist parties. (And many people criticised the recent British Labour Party governments for authoritarianism; they encroached on rights to free speech, free protest, and privacy; stopped short of gay marriage; opposed drug legalisation, etc; though arguably they weren't economically leftist.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The far-right British National Party is a fairly extreme example of an economic left/social right party (unsurprisingly the party is often described as fascist) - their manifesto suggests the renationalisation of most major public services and an economic model based on worker co-operatives, but they also want a system where citizenship is based on race, oppose mixed-race marriage, and want homosexuality driven "back into the closet". Depending on how you're defining right-wing, most nationalist parties in the UK could be described as left/right, but the big ones - Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party - are liberal on almost every social position that isn't related to nationalism. Smurrayinchester 13:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Respect Party is social conservative? I didn't know that. By the way, what is the platform of Respect Party and who were their candidates since their first participation of the House of Commons election to recent elections?

Did you follow the link? Respect Party? Or the websites linked from that page? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I did check the website of Respect Party and unfortunately, they have list of candidates since their first participation of House of Commons election and as well as their platform.

saluting during a foreign anthem

When Angela Merkel visited the US last year, she was greeted with a State Arrival Ceremony. Both the German and US national anthems were played, and the military officers saluted during both national anthems. However, President Obama did his civilian salute (with the right hand over the heart) during the US national anthem only. Was it appropriate for Obama to not salute a foreign anthem, as customary within the military, even though he is Commander in Chief? Ragettho (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably because the salute is an American custom and what Americans do to their anthem/flag, showing their allegiance to their own country. Why should Obama owe allegiance to Germany or any other foreign countries? Do Americans expect other counties' people do the salute to The Star-Spangled Banner and the flag of the United States? Oda Mari (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

These things are matters of protocol; which are highly scripted. It is more newsworthy when Obama is seen to have varied from protocol.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the protocols on these matters, but it is probably significant that German civilians don't do any kind of salute during their national anthem (at least, I don't think they do). --Tango (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Obama considered to be a civilian, though? He is, after all, the Commander in Chief, and all military personnel are required to salute during foreign anthems in addition to the US one. Ragettho (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

In the British armed forces, even military personnel don't salute when they're not wearing uniform; also, if they're wearing uniform but no headgear, they still don't salute. Our Salute article suggests that it's the same for the USA. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

He's a civilian, his authority is "over" the military chain of command as civilian authority over the military is a fairly fundamental component of liberal democracy.

ALR (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agreee with ALR, he is a civilian, although in a war he would be considered a military target by an enemy nation, so there are exceptions to his civilian status. --Lgriot (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

While still a civilian he'd be a legitimate target under the Law of Armed Conflict. Doesn't change his status.

ALR (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Collective term for groups of people with physical disabilities and people with special needs

Is there a term to refer collectively to the various groups of people with physical disabilities and people with special needs as a large community? Would an article about this community in the context of a specific country be suitable for inclusion into Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.10.11 (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've inserted a heading to move this question into a separate section. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be difficult to find a term that wouldn't result in terminal bickering over it's political correctness, and I think that the closest you may get are the terms you have already used, "those with physical disabilities" and those with "special needs" however both have their unpopular connotations. The entire world of physical and mental difficulty is too broad for one collective term I think. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. with SGGH.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is no 'community' of 'the various groups of people with physical disabilities and people with special needs'. I'm not sure what definition of the word community you are expecting to apply here. In context, a word or phrase will be chosen. So, for example, in an educational context, we might talk about students with Special Educational Needs, which is a blanket term implying they need extra support in some way, but doesn't specify why they need that extra support: they might have a special need because they are visually impaired, or because they are dyslexic, or because they have a language difficulty, or because they find fine motor skills difficult, or because they have problems with anger, or because they are recently bereaved, or all sorts of reasons. When it comes to Disability Living Allowance, it is supposed to depend on what a person needs help with, not why they need help with it. So these are things which, broadly, lump these issues together, but they don't imply any sort of 'community', nor do they use a single term to refer to all people with any sort of special need. 86.164.75.123 (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've seen the term "the disabled" used as a grouping expression, as in "We designed the building with the needs of the disabled in mind". HiLo48 (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently Crips is a different group of people entirely, but South Park had fun with the term anyway. StuRat (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Negative campaigning and the political system

Is there a connection between the degree of negative campaigning (in politics) and the political system in different countries? It seems to me that countries with several large parties would have less negative campaigning. You may want to ally with the other party in the future, and from a game theory perspective just because you stop the voters from voting for party B it doesn't mean this vote is going to your party. Sjö (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You would at minimum have to assume a tradition of coalition-forming for that to work.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that in the US system, during the primaries, each candidate is "on their own", rather than being represented by their party. They often go bitterly negative on each other, only to "kiss and make up" once the party makes it's choice. For example, George H. W. Bush famously referred to Ronald Reagan's supply-side economics as voodoo economics, only to take the VP slot under Reagan for the general election in 1980 and again in 1984. StuRat (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Rail crash at Concord West

I am seeking information in relation to a serious rail crash at Concord West around 1955. The train collided with a very large earth moving apparatus and the side was ripped out to the train. I am having difficulty finding any reference ot it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.64.171 (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about this?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks to be a good find. That information seems to be entirely absent from Railway accidents in New South Wales though and looks to be more serious than many of the other accidents listed, so should be added in. We're assuming of course that the OP is referring to Concord West in Sydney. --jjron (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Almost certainly this is what he was talking about. The description of the rail crash, that is, the side of the train being ripped open, and the presence of earth-moving equipment, convince me.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

J. Edgar Hoover

Hello all. Not a Wikipedia related message, but I was hoping someone could help. I'm interested in getting to know more about this chap, and I was wondering if anyone who perhaps worked on the topic could recommend a good biography of him? I've got a grounding in the relevant areas of history so wouldn't need a "dunces text" would like something quite in depth, and something that perhaps deals with the complexities of the man as well as his actions with the FBI. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know myself, I really have never dealt much with him. If you feel comfortable asking on the article talk page, you could. The leading editor who has edited the article recently is User:Plazak, he might be worth talking to.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of biographies listed in J. Edgar_Hoover#Sources. Athan Theoharis seems to be an academic expert, so his 1993 book might be an option. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried WP:FBI but their talk seemed pretty in-active, and I did peruse some of the biographies but couldn't tell which ones were considered definitive. I'll asked Plazak what he thinks, and look at this Theoharis one. Ta, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have read (most of) the Theoharis; it looks good; serious, undogmatic unfantical left-wing, but perhaps not for the beginner. One thing is certain: Hoover was neither dumb, nor simply a sexual pervert (as is often alleged), but he used simply illegal means for much of his career.--Radh (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Kalām cosmological argument

Um... I've never this objection anywhere, so I'm gonna ask it here.Isn't it a sort of contradiction, saying that everything needs a cause at the beginning of the argument and then saying there is something that doesn't at the end of it?--Irrational number (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a strict contradiction per se, but certainly an inconsistent handling of assumptions in the argument. The argument seems to be that the First Cause is so special that it has to be god. There are various embellishments ("God is outside of time and space, so does not need a cause"), but they all seem like special pleading to me. From a logical point of view, I don't see a reason why every action needs a cause (what causes a U235 atom to split at a particular time?), nor do I see why infinite regression can be ruled out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a good overview of the argument at the Stanford Encyclopedia [2] (written by Reichenbach, who is very dependable). Hopefully you can get something out of it. This is still an active topic for both philosophers and astrophysicists and university seminars are done on it, so you can jump right into the issue and no doubt learn a lot and even come to answers which are wholly satisfactory to you, but don't expect unanimous answers all around! --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, you can see how there is not that contradiction in the way the argument in posed in the SEP article. It is not assuming that absolutely everything needs a cause, but only that all things which have a beginning (or finite past) need a cause. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 10:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

siblings on either side of the law

Do we have examples of male siblings, one of whom is a career criminal, and the other of whom is significantly involved in law enforcement? If there are many such cases, would it make sense to have a WP:List article which would be a list of siblings, one of whom is reliably sourced as having been significantly involved in criminal activity, and the other of whom is reliably sourced as having been significantly involved in law enforcement? Bus stop (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

1. The Bulger Brothers Whitey Bulger, Head of the Boston Irish Mafia. Billy Bulger, MA State Senate President and most powerful lawmaker in MA.

2. the Capone Brothers.

Al Capone, famous racketeer and boss of the Chicago Outfite.

James Capone, less famous Prohibition Agent (he was not assigned to chicago).

3. Guliani Family.

Gulliani, famed federal prosecutor and NY Mayor.

Gulliani's father, low level street thug and bookie who went straight around the time his son was born.

Gulliani's uncles, Officers in the New York Police Department.

Hope this helps.

David Kaczynski wasn't in law enforcement, but he did turn in his brother Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, not precisely the same situation, but Edward J. O'Hare was well-connected, being a Capone employee, though he later helped Scarface get convicted for tax evasion. His son Edward O'Hare was a war hero and got an airport named after him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Arguably, J. Edgar Hoover was on both sides of the law at the same time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There's likely to be many of them, given the early history of the FBI. The FBI in the 1950s and 1960s especially made "organized crime" a primary mission. And by organized crime, they generally meant Italian-American organized crime (i.e. the Mafia) and they specifically and deliberately recruited agents from the same neighborhoods they would be investigating; such people would have had "inside information" and know the culture and environment. There were a lot of Italian-American agents who had "connected" relatives, maybe even siblings. this google search turns up some good leads on the topic. --Jayron32 19:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody, for your responses. I consider them all appropriate. None were as stark as I was thinking would exist, but maybe my conception was simplistic. I was thinking we would see two brothers starting from similar backgrounds and for no apparent reason setting out in opposite directions—one pursuing some illegal activity, the other pursuing law enforcement. I would imagine such pairs exist but they may be lower profile individuals, neither of whom received a lot of notoriety. Bus stop (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

What makes this hard to measure is that sometimes the gangsters are on the side of the police, or the police are on the side of the gangsters. See [3] where 25 Chicago police officers were dismissed or under investigation for gang affiliations in 1995. I have to say that in a situation of the type you describe, such a cynical interpretation would be my first reaction. Wnt (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. It shows the permeability of what I have been positing to be a strict boundary. Bus stop (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia

Why did he call his book on the Spanish Civil War 'Homage to Catalonia'? Probably an easy question to answer but Google didn't help much. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This, p. 91 has some discussion, although I wouldn't call it a RS.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Public Broadcasting System

I just read your information on PBS. I would like to know how much money the Federal Govt gives to PBS annually. Thank you. 69.158.3.57 (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

In 2005, it was around 66 million dollars, according to the source at footnote 18 in PBS. RudolfRed (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a little bit difficult to answer, as the answer depends on what exactly you're trying to find out. If it's how much money the Federal government gives directly to PBS for general operating expenses, as far as I'm aware, the answer is none: the Federal government funds the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which in turn gives money to PBS, NPR, and other broadcasters. On the CPB article page, it's listed that CPB gave $25.2 million to PBS directly for fiscal year 2010. However, because of how public television is organized, it's inaccurate to say that $25.2 million is the only Federal money going towards putting out the public television broadcast. PBS is an umbrella organization, and its member stations are independent entities which may receive funding from the government and CPB ($210.26 million from CPB for fiscal year 2010, according to the article), a portion of which (along with viewer contributions, donations, and state funds) goes to pay PBS for programming. But then, PBS doesn't really produce programs itself, rather it purchases programs from member stations (like WGBH, WNET, etc.). Additionally, a surprisingly large portion of the content on "PBS" stations actually doesn't come through PBS at all, but rather comes through independent distributors such as American Public Television (which itself often gets programs from PBS member stations), or third party producers. The production of a number of these programs is supported in part by the Federal government, either through the CPB, or through grants from other agencies like the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education and the National Endowment for the Arts. So if you want a single number, you need to figure out what, exactly, you're looking for. -- 67.40.215.173 (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

National Gallery info

So, I get to write an essay on just about any architectural creation I want, and I chose Venturi's extension to the National Gallery, but now I come to start work, I am finding it difficult to actually find much information on the place, the various complex design features, reasons for them, criticism and praise, all that sort of thing, does anyone here know of any sites that give that sort of information?

148.197.81.179 (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I would look for news coverage from when it opened. I would be surprised if major newspapers' architectural critics did not have something to say about it. Also check Google News Archive for the days around the time it opened.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Which nation's National Gallery are we talking about? HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

UK. Also search the BBC web site, they keep their stuff a long time.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the National Gallery. I found this, and this (click on "Download Links" in the top right margin). Also [4] this about the engineering of the place. Architecture isn't really my thing though, so I'm not sure if I'm being much help. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This interview, [5], [6], [7], [8] (and just keep pressiong "NEXT" on the bottom left of the player) may be of interest too. Alansplodge (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

January 23

National conservatism in Europe

Which political parties are based on national conservatism?

Try national conservatism. Is this homework? IBE (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

What denomination do born-again Christians belong to?

Here in the Philippines, I know several people who are "born-again Christians" and I see small churches all around calling themselves "Full Gospel Church" or "Non-Sectarian Gospel Church", but what denomination of Christianity are they? Our article on "born agains" is vague on the matter, although after a little bit of research, they may be Pentecostal churches. But are they Pentecostalists, Protestants, or are not part of any particular denomination? And as a side question, is the Iglesia ni Cristo Protestant and is the Philippine Independent Church and Members Church of God International Catholic? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Lots of different denominations. "Full gospel" churches are Pentecostal, but there are plenty of other denominations (note that Pentecostals are a kind of Protestants) whose members would be likely to refer to themselves as "born-again". By the way, there are lots of Pentecostal denominations, as well as lots of independent Pentecostal churches that aren't part of any denomination; Pentecostalism is more like a family of denominations. Members of my denomination are going to describe themselves as "born-again" if you ask them, and we're very far indeed from being Pentecostal. I'll leave it to someone else to answer the side question. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC

For your first question, I agree with the above: there is no one denomination rhey belong to, though I would add that they aren't likely to be Catholics, as thry don't generally use that term. For your second question, the articles you link to answer the question, though again, if you mean Roman Catholic (the kind most people think of when they hear the word Catholic; there's more than one kind) then no, they aren't. Mingmingla (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Just by way of adding to the above responses, you might like to read Evangelicalism. Basically, most Protestant Christians I know (in Australia) identify as evangelical, and use the term fairly often, but rarely say they are "born-again Christians" (it has a pejorative connotation here). But if you asked them whether they are born-again, I'm fairly sure they would say yes, as per the article I linked. The most often-cited distinction is really between evangelical and liberal Christians in Protestant circles, so the people you know most probably are evangelicals (unless it's different where you are). But you'd have to ask them. IBE (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It's possible that they aren't in any denomination--the "non-sectarian" bit suggests that to me anyway. You may want to read Nondenominational Christianity. Meelar (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that possibly Justification (theology) may be relevant here - though the 'again' part is difficult to reconcile with the more strict understandings of the concept of predestination. Then again, I'm an atheist, so what would I know... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, but if you look at their beliefs and practices (and history), "non-denominational" churches are generally Southern Baptists or similar who have renamed themselves "non-denominational" because of awareness that denominations (as divisions) are pretty clearly condemned in the New Testament. However, this doesn't actually mean they aren't a denomination: they have a set of beliefs and practices which are not the same as the basics that all Christians agree on, and they expect members to follow them. Their denomination is called "non-denominational", but that doesn't mean they aren't a denomination. They're generally Calvinist. It reminds me of when people belong to the majority culture in a given society, and thus say that they "have no culture", that they themselves are some sort of 'neutral'. 86.164.75.123 (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that they could be just about any denomination as 'born again' is a phrase used by Jesus in John 3. Eomund (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Born-again/evangelical Christianity isn't a denomination as such, it's more a style practised by some congregations of various protestant denominations, and some independent churches that aren't affiliated to any denomination. Where I come from (Belfast), most protestant churches are evangelical to some degree, and that includes Church of Ireland, Prebyterian, Methodist, Baptist and independent. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Overturning Dred Scott

Is Dred Scott v. Sandford generally considered to have been overturned in full? Obviously a lot of it was overturned by the Reconstruction Amendments, but I'm interested in something that none of them (and no amendments enacted since that time) seem to discuss. A key component of the ruling was that Scott, not being a US citizen, did not have standing to file the suit that he did; since no amendment ratified since the case has discussed the question of noncitizens suing in US courts, I'm not sure quite how to understand the article's statement that the case is no longer jurisprudentially important. Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't necessary to settle the general issue of the rights of non-citizens in order to overturn Scott. The court ruled that Dred Scott was considered a non-citizen because he was of African ancestry. The 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause extended jus soli citizenship to anyone born on US soil (as Scott was), so Scott was therefore nullified. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that's beside the point — no constitutional amendment has granted non-citizens the right to sue in US courts, and as far as I know, no later Supreme Court decisions have stated that non-citizens have a right to sue in US courts. Can you present something to show that I'm partially or completely wrong? Nyttend (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest getting someone with online access to Shepard's Citations to settle it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not beside the point at all. To build on what Wehwalt says below, the ruling was not about whether or not non-citizens in general had the standing to bring a case in a US court. The ruling was about whether or not those of African descent were citizens. The ruling was about determining who was a citizen, and nothing more. The general issue of the rights of what non-citizens could and could not do was not at issue for this case, so I'm not sure why you would expect that essentially unrelated question to be settled for this to be completely put to rest. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the law, but this surely fails a reality check; see stories like [http://www.wnd.com/2009/02/89295/ "Rancher ordered to pay illegals $77,000"], etc. Wnt (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, obviously that's not the way that US courts work now; I'm just curious if it's been explicitly overturned, or if precedent has essentially just ignored that finding. Nyttend (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt if there was ever a case which said that Dred Scott was overruled, explicitly. The ratification of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments put an end to those particular factual circumstances, and so that would never come before a court. That being said, there are certainly any number of Supreme Court dissents which accuse the majority of promulgating the worst case since then.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This is discussed in the book Slavery, Law, and Politics: The Dred Scott Case in Historical Perspective by Don E. Fehrenbacher ISBN 0-19-502883-X. Apparently, the closest thing to an explicit judicial overturn came in the Insular Cases, when one "Justice Brown" stated that the Civil war had "produced such changes in judicial, as well as public sentiment, as to seriously impair the authority of this case". Apparently certain minor technicalities about the relationship between federal citizenship and state citizenship (not directly connected with race) still remain accepted, despite having been first introduced in Dred Scott... AnonMoos (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. the Conservapedia article actually appears to have a little more information than the Wikipedia article on this point. AnonMoos (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And they think Garret Hobart was from Ohio, and was a congressman. Not.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Not really an answer, but see standing 124.148.55.187 (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Why didn't the US kill Che earlier?

Hi, I've just stumbled across this video about the speech Che gave to the UN in 1964. Given that he was the enemy of the US at the time, and that he was virtually on American soil, why didn't the US send out an assassin to murder him? Are there policies regarding the actions of other nations on the soil belonging to the UN, or was Che to clever at deceiving the FBI, CIA, or any other intelligence agencies belonging to enemies of Cuba? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Che Guevara was head of the Cuban delegation to the UN in December 1964 so his trip was not a secret; during his visit he appeared on CBS and met with US politicians. There were attempts to assassinate him while he was in New York, but they were carried out by Cuban exiles. Although the CIA had links to Cuban exile groups, it is very unlikely that the US government would have openly supported the assassination of Che Guevara while he was in New York - apart from any ethical considerations, they would not have wanted to risk Soviet retaliation. Remember this was in the middle of the Cold War and only two years after the Cuban missile crisis. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't find any references but I think that as part of the treaty that sited the UN in New York, the US gave certain guarantees regarding people attending the UN, allowing them to travel freely, etc. These may well include protection for anyone attending the UN in a diplomatic function. This would have prevented them from arresting/capturing Guevara, and if the US government was found to have assassinated him, the repercussions would have been even more serious, with the UN effectively unable to do business. Additionally, the US government does occasionally like to obey the law, and doesn't normally assassinate people on US soil, at least as far as we know. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure they are allowed to travel freely; when Khrushchev came to the UN (the shoe-banging), he had made himself head of the USSR's delegation, but as tensions were high and K wasn't exactly high on the State Department's Christmas card list, he was restricted to Manhattan, plus weekend trips to a country house the USSR owned on Long Island. I will look for the actual treaty too.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that it is a host countries duty to protect any members of foreign a delegation, and any diplomats. Politically and legally this would have been the worst time to assassinate him. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It is the sort of thing that could lead to a boycotting or re-siting of the UN, at the very least. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

See diplomatic immunity, a principle that has been followed for centuries. Nyttend (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. But what if, in a highly-implausible case, the diplomat murdered someone? Would he/she be given immunity? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 23:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Che may have been an enemy of the US, but he wasn't all that dangerous, after Cuba fell to Fidel Castro. In fact, he bickered with Castro, who sent him abroad to get rid of him (which resulted in Che's execution in 1967). I'm surprised nobody shot him sooner, if only for that hair. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think Fidel was more of a danger than Che was? The former wanted to change the political landscape in Cuba only, whereas Che wanted a World Revolution.

Because merely wanting something doesn't make it happen. You'd need a good plan and plenty of resources. Che didn't seem to have either. And, as our article states "...Guevara's known preference for confrontation rather than compromise, which had previously surfaced during his guerrilla warfare campaign in Cuba, contributed to his inability to develop successful working relationships with local leaders...". So, leaving "the forces of world revolution" with an incompetent leader may well have been their strategy. Castro, on the other hand, nearly succeeded in starting WW3 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That makes him far more dangerous than Che. StuRat (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

How likely is intelligence?

I was reading an interview with a noted philosopher of science in the Atlantic, and he made a novel (to me) point about the Fermi Paradox: namely, that of all the millions of species that existed on earth, humans are the first to actually have intelligence enough to use technology. His point was that even if life is common, intelligence is not, and that this could explain the "great silence". So this raises a couple questions for me. First of all, has anyone else raised this point previously, and if so, any good sources to read more about it? And secondly, is there any reason that intelligence didn't arise earlier than it did? Is there some physical or biological fact that would prevent the development of a tool-using dinosaur, for instance? Thanks! Meelar (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

See Drake equation, specifically notes 20 to 22, and anything about the parameter f_i in that equation. IBE (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Intelligence at the human level is not necessary to survive in the wild, so it doesn't normally happen. You don't need to be able to build carts on wheels and do the maths to calculate trajectories of balistic missiles to survive. And the brains to be able to do that are really costly, so they are not an evolutionary advantage. Something odd happened to apes, that is that we started selecting ourselves using intellingence as the key criteria, through sexual selection, (while natural selection was still operating normally). This may explain the fermi paradox, sexual selecction is not uncommon, but sexual selection of intelligence has indeed only been observed once. I have never read anything discussing the reason why it didn't happen in other social animals earlier, but I guess sexual selection criterias are decided randomly?--Lgriot (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Amerindians were unable to build carts on wheels because they never invented the wheel.
Sleigh (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And also because they never invented the horse (American bison, the only candidate beasts of burden, are very hard or impossible to domesticate). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

While we're here, think about the Australian Aboriginal people. The big mammal they faced was the kangaroo. Can you imagine them as beasts of burden? HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well potentially they could have used the Diprotodon except it seems they were more than a little complicit in the diprotodon's extinction before they got a chance to come up with a use other than food. --jjron (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

More to the point, humans are not just the first intelligent species to use technology, but based on our extraction and manipulation of resources on the surface and below, they are the last. Viriditas (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if we eliminate ourselves in a way that leaves a more or less functioning biosphere, that may not be the case.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that based on the collective evidence from various disciplines, intelligence on Earth is a one shot deal. Viriditas (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We'll never know ...--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we already know. See future of the Earth for only one piece of evidence. There's a lot more where that came from, and it ain't pretty. We're it, folks. Viriditas (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That article gives us some 4 billion years before all life on Earth is extinct, which might be enough to reach intelligent life starting over from a glowing ball of magma. However, if we manage to kill off ourselves, and leave any life behind, even cockroaches, that would be a huge leap forward from nothing. StuRat (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Plants and microbes will be all that's left in just 500-600 million years from now. McKay explains the one shot deal argument: "among mammals, humans developed intelligence first and are thereby effectively precluding the development of intelligence in other species. It follows from this argument that intelligence evolves once and only once on a planet, because once evolved it changes the rules of the interaction between species and effectively dominates the planet from then on." That does not mean, however, that another intelligent species (such as Troodon) did not previously evolve to build radio telescopes (the measure of intelligence according to McKay) but just that there are no technological artifacts left for us to examine if they were ever intelligent enough to create any. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That argument seems to assume that intelligent species are either immune from extinction, or would wipe out every other life form with them. I can quite easily imagine us wiping ourselves out without causing much permanent damage to other life on Earth, say due to a war using human-specific bioweapons. We might also engineer either self-replicating machine intelligence or biological intelligence, before we wipe ourselves out. StuRat (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The argument assumes neither. What determines our potential for extinction depends on which step we find ourselves along the Great Filter. But to get back to the argument at hand:

• "...the overwhelming majority of living things failed to evolve smartness. Unlike streamlined bodies, wings, and eyes, intelligence of the sort that characterizes Homo sapiens is hardly a widespread biological trait, having arisen (so far as we know) just once in all the fifty billion species that have existed since the origin of life."[9]
• "To attain that level of intelligence, life has to evolve to a high level of complexity, and it must do this within the few-billion-year habitability window during which the sun burns stably...the evolution of intelligent life on Earth has 'used up' about 4 billion years of the roughly 5-billion year window of opportunity, before Earth gets fried by the swelling sun...If our understanding about the sun's evolution is correct, then (according to the best estimates) there's about 800 million years to go before our planet is too hot to support intelligent life."[10]
• "The fact that high levels of intelligence have evolved so seldom during the history of animal life on Earth suggests that the circumstances that favor intelligence are rare. Therefore, as evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould pointed out, if complex life were to evolve all over again, it is unlikely that a human level of intelligence would evolve...scientists should not expect to find highly intelligent life on every planet that is capable of supporting complex life. Gould strongly rejected the idea that strucurally simpler organisms are evolving toward higher intelligence."[11]
• "Clearly high intelligence has little evolutionary advantage, for it has appeared once in tens of billion attempts. As Ernst Mayr has pointed out, even the development of high intelligence may not lead to the ability to communicate with distant planets. Only one of the 20 or so civilizations, some with highly developed skills in astronomy, that have arisen on Earth in the past 5000 years has developed the technology with the potential to communicate with other possible life-forms elsewhere."[12]

The bottom line is that there isn't enough time nor chance for life to evolve advanced intelligence for a second time. Based on the available evidence, we are the great inheritors of intelligence for the planet Earth and that necessitates a great deal of responsibility. Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

How does it not assume either ? If we wipe ourselves out with a human-specific bio-weapon, leaving every other life form here, a billion years is plenty of time for another intelligent life form to develop from, say, another primate. That 1 in 20 civilizations argument only works by considering us to now have a single global civilization. And, since any civilization to develop radio communication is likely to spread this idea to the rest of the planet, you would inevitably only have one. StuRat (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You continue to appeal to the fallacy of the ladder of evolution. The evolution of intelligence is in no way guaranteed or even a goal. Because of the numerous constraints listed above (and hidden assumptions not raised due to space considerations) the circumstances that led to the development of intelligence on Earth are unlikely to happen again. You're assuming that human intelligence is an evolutionary endpoint when the evidence is against it. Have you forgotten about the five mass extinctions that occurred during the last 600 million years? There have been plenty of chances for intelligent species to evolve. Why didn't they? Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Homo genus contained several species and subspecies which developed a fair degree of intelligence (Neanderthals, in particular). Competition with modern humans apparently killed them off, but there's no reason to assume that additional intelligent primates wouldn't soon evolve again, if humans were no longer around to prevent this. And other primates already have the pre-reqs for our brand of intelligence, those being the opposable thumb, a social structure, and the ability, and least part time, for bipedal motion. The benefit of developing intelligence is obvious for primates, as the number of habitats and biomass of modern humans far outweighs that of other primates. And note that the Homo genus is only around 2.5 million years old, so that could evolve many times between now and the next mass extinction. StuRat (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on the evidence, there is no reason to assume that another intelligent primate will ever evolve on Earth. The number of random steps needed to develop advanced intelligence that allows one to build radio telescopes isn't known and can't be duplicated, nor has any other species on Earth shown this ability during the "short" duration within the habitability and stability window of the Sun. The limited time frame available for intelligence to advance within these constraints points to the validity of the one shot deal over and above any appeal to a "ladder" of evolution. This is consistent with the Fermi paradox, regardless of its flaws. When I read your argument, I'm really seeing a lot of anthropocentrism. There isn't a single good reason to think primates will ever evolve advanced intelligence again. This is it. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Back to the OP's original question though, no it is certainly not a new idea. Noted evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould talked and wrote about this quite regularly. Gould would often bring up the point how, unlike many other structures found in different lineages on Earth, intelligence did not seem to show convergence; therefore it may well be that we are the single 'experiment' down this line in the universe (conversely he also pointed out that for all we know, on another planet intelligence may well be as convergent as eyes or jaws are on Earth). I'd recommend you look through his back catalogue (unfortunately I can't remember many specific titles where he wrote about this off the top of my head, although I do seem to remember a chapter on it in the very good and very readable Wonderful Life (book)). I also seem to remember that other great populariser of science from the 70s and after Carl Sagan bringing it up too. I bring it up at times myself in the course of my job.

Getting onto your second question, there's a number of interesting evolutionary 'accidents' that helped humans evolve the intelligence that they did. If not for basically sheer luck we could never have created our technology, etc; I recall Gould discussing these in some depth. For example, an obvious one is our opposable thumb, a consequence of our primate ancestry but not necessarily something that need be associated with intelligence. However, if not for the opposable thumb, we would not be able to grip things, make and use tools, and have ever done thousands or millions of other things that eventually led to where we are today. Consider a dolphin for example; they are considered quite intelligent, but there's no real possibility they could ever do what we've done with only their flippers to work with no matter how good their brains got. This type of thing contributes to humans being able to do what they've done, and if high levels of intelligence evolved in other lineages they may never be able to exploit it in the same way (past or future). --jjron (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, there is much literature on all these topics, ranging from scholarly books to science fiction (David Brin's Uplift books, for example). I tend to be dubious about any conclusions about the likelihood of intelligence, as we are working from one known instance in which a planet that had life evolved intelligence, and if it had not, we would not be having this discussion. It's too early to tell if the dice are loaded.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Noting that dolphins have been known to use tools, and to teach other dolphins to do the same. So this discussion depends a bit on how one defines the use of technology. - Bilby (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That's already assumed. We're talking about technology in terms of the Fermi paradox argument. Namely, the first civilization to develop advanced technology needed to explore their Solar System, eventually colonizes their galaxy exponentially. The fact that "they" aren't here is the paradox. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. Star travel will not be easy to develop, but it's surely trivial in terms of geologic time, and we have no reason to believe the Sun or Earth particularly exceptional by galactic standards, or early developing.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, all, these were very helpful. Meelar (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And, in addition to the opposable thumb, bipedal locomotion was also important, in that it freed our hands to use tools (it likely first developed as a way to see above high grass). Other body configuration, like that of the mythical centaur, could also accomplish this. Cephalopods appear to be intelligent, probably in part because they also have "free arms" to use tools. Other factors which seem to select for intelligence are being social animals, omnivores, and prey for carnivores. StuRat (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

To see over tall grass? What is your basis for saying this is the "likely" explanation for human bipedal motion? I've seen a lot of theories, and a lot of just-so stories, but I don't think I've ever seen that one, even from old works that uncritically accepted the Savannah hypothesis. 86.164.75.123 (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There are current primates, and other mammals like prairie dogs, meerkats, and bears, which hop or stand on their rear legs when trying to see farther, which provides an obvious evolutionary advantage, so it's hardly a stretch. StuRat (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright in US judicial decisions

Since it's an established principle that US federal government works are in the public domain, rulings of federal courts are free to copy, sell, modify, etc. How does this work in cases such as this story or Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., in which the rulings include works created by others? I'm just guessing that someone copying these images or song lyrics would not have a substantial argument in saying that s/he was just copying part of a federal court decision, but I can't understand exactly that would stand up; on the other hand, it doesn't seem likely that these works would be considered to be in the public domain. Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There would be no trouble reproducing it as a part of the court decision, or a substantial part thereof. On its own, I don't think you'd get away with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A notable instance was the Fishman affidavit; in this case some Scientology materials were sort of dumped into a massive court filing, making them publicly accessible. The affidavit was later sealed, but it is still readily available on the Internet... Wnt (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The rule is that US institutions cannot hold copyright; it simply never accrues to them. (Note that to the best of my knowledge there is no active process of "public domain"ing already copyrighted works.) Thus federal employees such as judges do not hold copyright over materials they create (judgments) but whilst they are still free to quote other sources in their judgments, those sources remain copyright by their authors. Reproducing judgments that include quantities of quoted material is undoubtedly problematic; it's really a case of seeing how much infringement you can "get away with" under the doctrine of fair use rather than pure and simple immunity. (Realistically, I think the judge him/herself does operate under conditions of de facto immunity, but not, I think, de jure. By way of a side note, the same applies in the UK in some interesting cases such as examination papers.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 14:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The government can actually acquire copyrights; I've run into that in getting Antonin Scalia to FA; the justice's official portraits were done at government expense but by private photographers, rights to which the government purchased. The Court offered us the images on condition they not be used commercially, but that's a license we can't accept and instead we cropped Scalia from a group shot taken by the Court's employee photographer.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Intriguing. (Come to mention it, I remember a similar thing with the whole "seizing the copyright of states you're at war" with thing, the official name of which I forget.) So yeah, it probably is best to leave it as "no copyright accrues to the federal government" and leave everything else the same (i.e. there is still the risk of infringing copyright when reproducing federal judgments). - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 14:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

rights of a tenant

Does a tenant of privately rented accommodation have the right to know the identity of a stranger entering his/her home? For example; If the landlord decides to sell his property and sends a potential buyer to view the property, accompanied by an estate agent representative, has the tenant a right to know the name and occupation of the stranger entering his/her home? (identity presentation as per; passport/driving licence82.12.88.52 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It would depend on what the contract said, and what the law is in your state. We can't answer that, it is giving legal advice.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I gather on second reading that you are non-US. It is still dependent on the local law, and what the contracts say.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

In the UK my experience is that they give 24h notice of a viewing, but that may just be a kindness, and as Wehwalt says, you can't take this as legal advice. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about occupation (irrelevent as far as I am concerned), but it's just common sense to ask for ID from anyone entering your home anyway. I don't know if they legally have to show it, but you, as a tenant, have the right to turn anybody away. However, IANAL, so if you think you need legal advice on this matter, consult a lawyer, or the CAB, or the Housing Association, or your estate agent. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not that easy. If the real estate agent has a bona fide right to be there, does the occupant have a right to demand ID from the people with the agent? It is a complicated matter, but I suspect it's being asked for use with a specific application.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The real estate agent? As opposed to an imposter? This is partly what we are talking about here :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

real estate agent--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You should check the terms of your lease. Most leases in the United States have a provision allowing the landlord to show the property to potential renters or buyers with reasonable advance notice (often 24 hours) to the tenant. The tenant does not have the right to decline entry to the property in such a case and may even be required to make the property presentable, though the wording of that last requirement is usually vague and difficult to enforce. I have never heard of a right of the tenant to demand identification from the landlord or anyone visiting a property on the landlord's behalf. However, laws protecting tenants may be stronger where you live, so please consult an attorney or tenant's organization that will have information specific to your jurisdiction on your rights and obligations. Marco polo (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have experienced, as a landlord in the UK, the situation where the tenant repeatedly refused a prospective buyer entry. Actually, I found out that despite making appointments with at least 24 hours notice, the tenant always seemed to be out what ever the appointment time. It would have been so much better if the tenant had cooperated, but I eventually had to evict the tenant (a two month process in the UK) just so the estate agent could easily gain entry and show prospective buyers round. Astronaut (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

History

Hi, at school we had an assignment to write an analysis of a specific or general piece of history. I uploaded mine to Wikipedia in the hopes that you guys could review it for me and tell me if its any good or not? I know your policy is to do your own homework but technically its already done I just need a few pointers. Thanks here is the essay User:Hadseys/The State of the World. --Hadseys (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit long for me to want to read. However, here are a few pointers:

1) I don't see a "thesis statement" at the beginning about what you hope to show.

2) Anything that long needs to be split up into chapters. StuRat (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a whole collection of "don't"s there. (a) Your topic ("The State of the World") is far too broad; you need to narrow it down. (b) A strong essay is usually based around a problem or question, and should begin by exposing as quickly as possible what the problem or question is. Then everything else in the essay should contribute toward solving the problem or answering the question. (c) You would benefit greatly from a "pyramid" structure in which you begin by summarizing in your first paragraph the structure of your essay. (d) Your paragraphs lack coherence. A good paragraph should almost always begin with a topic sentence that expresses the point the paragraph is intended to make, and then every other sentence in the paragraph should clearly work in support of that topic sentence. Looie496 (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

My view, although, like Stu, I couldn't read the whole thing: really brilliant in many ways, but too long, and way too ambitious. Edward Gibbon published the Decline and Fall at about 37 years of age, and even he attempted less in several thousand pages than you are trying to accomplish in 40 paragraphs. Basically, your writing is great, but it needs a bit of editing, as there is some incorrect use of commas, and a few typos which I'm sure you'll figure out. Your individual paragraphs didn't seem too bad to me, but the connection between them was vague, largely because you are trying to write such a broad essay. It looks erudite, and is interesting for a while, but it is just wearying reading generalisations without a clear overarching purpose. Also, your beginning seems somewhat irrelevant to the essay, and stylistically, points like this, making a superficial connection between the culturual origins (Greece) and a recent venue (Beijing) of the Olympics, are best suited to journalism. But you have a lot of talent, and we would benefit from your increased participation on this Ref Desk. You'll also learn a lot about addressing specific questions, if I may say so. IBE (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Just as a general point about writing assignments, check that you have completely met the specifications your teacher gave you. If the teacher said your essay was to be 1500 words long, and you have written 15,000 (or 1501 for that matter), then you have failed! If the teacher said your essay was to be about a general piece of history, and you have given you opinions about the state the world is in today, then you have failed! Make sure you have met the original brief. That is possibly the most important piece of advice regarding writing any form of essay I can give you (as a retired teacher myself). --TammyMoet (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't resist checking - it's 10,000+ words long. I was told an honours thesis can be around 15,000 words, although I admit that sounds short. So, Hadseys, you have written about half an honours thesis, but it was a pretty fine effort anyway. I would like to revise some of my earlier points - I think the structure is clear enough early on, then it wanders (in my understanding) when you start talking about the Greeks, then medicine, then violence, etc. Also, you double a few words, so you need to proofread it again. Then some of your sentences start off sounding really professional, but go on for too long. IBE (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks everybody for the constructive criticism! --Hadseys (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be tempted to load it into a word processor and run the spell checker (and a grammar checker if available). And then get someone else to proofread it for you. I too think it is rather long. Are you sure the assignment was for such a lengthy piece? - if so, that's quite unusual. Like Tammy hints at above, you could be penalised if it is way too long though I disagree that you would fail if you are only a few words over (or under). Astronaut (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - +/- 10% is a fairly common rule of thumb. Remember, whoever marks it isn't likely to actually count the words. They will just go on roughly how long it seems. --Tango (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there a relationship between the analysis of King Lear and the contemporary culture wars?

I was reading the article on King Lear, and judging by the wording of the analysis and interpretations on Wikipedia's article, I found that it represented a characteristic of contemporary culture wars. Now, I may be misinterpreting what it says, so I am wondering there is any analysis out there that compares King Lear and the contemporary culture wars. It appears that both of them are arguing this: pure reason vs. pure emotion. 164.107.190.95 (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really understand the connection between "contemporary culture wars" and "pure reason vs. pure emotion". Taking one contemporary culture war: 'western' lifestyles versus hardline fundamentalist Islamicism, neither of the two seems particularly pure, neither is very well reasoned and both come with ladelfuls of emotion. --Dweller (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"O Lear, Lear, Lear!/Beat at this gate, that let thy folly in" (King Lear, Act I, scene iv, ll 225-6). Lear was nevertheless Teh Epic FAIL in terms of insight and self-awareness. Is that what you are asking about? Hmm. --Shirt58 (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Bengalis in former British colonies

is there any history of former British colonies in Africa(Gambia, Nigeria, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Egypt, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Namibia, Libya, Somalia, and Malawi, Seychelles and Mauritius) have labor workers who were Bengali from British Raj? i have a feeling most of them were from Bangladesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.116 (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles you may find useful to answer your question:

• Asian South African
• Indian South Africans
• Asians in Africa
• Indian diaspora in East Africa
• Coolie
• Non-resident Indian and Person of Indian Origin

There are no Wikipedia articles titled "Bangladeshis in <blank>" where <blank> is a former African colony, so that may be a clue that there are not sizable numbers of Bangladeshis specifically in those places, but British Bangladeshi may give you some leads as well. --Jayron32 19:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

See also Indian indenture system which includes a table of Colonial British Indian indentured labour transportation by country. However, there is no break-down for which part of the Indian Empire these labourers came from. I may be generalising, but Bengal was known for being densely populated and not very wealthy, so you are probably right that a good proportion of them may have been Bengalis. Alansplodge (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Bangladesh didn't exist as such until the early 1970's. Before that it was East Pakistan or East Bengal. It's likely that no distinction was made between migrants from eastern or western Bengal. Rojomoke (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Give It Your Best!

I'm interested in learning more about this WWII poster. It happens to be "Give It Your Best!" What's the history behind it? I also learned a new version was created after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. What's the significance between the two versions?24.90.204.234 (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It was commissioned by the Office of Emergency Management in 1942 in an effort to boost factory production[13]. It was designed by Charles Coiner [14][15] - NOT Charles Coiner that we have a Wikipedea page for! He died in 1989 at the age of 91 [16] and also designed Roosevelt's 1933 "Blue Eagle" poster for the National Recovery Administration, although Wikipedea doesn't credit him for it. Looks like enough ammo for an article, if anybody is bored. Alansplodge (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Full name was Charles Toucey Coiner, (1898 - 1989) [17][18]. Alansplodge (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

My ears are burning. I guess I'll have to give it my best. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Voilà: Charles T. Coiner. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. But I'm still trying to find the significance between the WWII version and the 9/11 version.24.90.204.234 (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I had a short rummage through Google last night looking for any mention of the 2001 version of the poster, but failed miserably. From my (British) side of the Atlantic, it seems that anything prominently featuring the Stars and Stripes and an upbeat slogan would have gone down well at that time. Oh, well done Clarityfiend, I knew someone would take the bait ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

number of men who had membership in puritan church who sign mayflower compact

of the settlers traveling on the Mayflower, how many were adult men? how many adult men were "saints", having membership in puritan the church? did women qualify to be "saints"? did all the adult male "saints" sign the Compact? if not, why not? where there any non-English among the settlers? aboard mayflower? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.31.220.207 (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Our list of passengers on the Mayflower provides (linked) names and information on all of the passengers on that ship. All of the passengers were English. I do not think that any of them were Puritans, or Englishmen who wanted to purify the Church of England of pagan or Catholic elements. Instead, the Pilgrims were separatists, who wished to break from the Church of England altogether. Not all of the passengers on the Mayflower shared the religious views of the Pilgrim leadership. Apparently, however, all adult male passengers on the Mayflower signed the Compact, not just those who shared the religious views of the Pilgrims. Marco polo (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, those settlers onboard the Mayflower who were emigrating for "religious" reasons were the ones identified in that article as "Leyden congregation and families". The original settlers would have identified this group as "the Saints". All of the other passengers would have been considered "the Strangers", and included anyone who was not part of the "Pilgrim" religious group. See also Plymouth_Colony#English, which has a good explanation (or, generally I think so, as I wrote most of it). --Jayron32 20:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

accounts of 17th century weddings

Can anyone point me to 17th Century accounts of aristocratic weddings? - especially ones in France, though in English please - and with emphasis on the decorations of the place where the wedding was set, too, if possible.

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a famous painting of the wedding of Louis XIV and Maria Theresa in 1660; there are a few versions of it on Commons, if that helps. There is also a book titled "Scenes from the Marriage of Louis XIV: Nuptial Fictions and the Making of Absolutist Power" (see Amazon for example). Is that perhaps too aristocratic? You may be looking for a more, well, normal ceremony... Adam Bishop (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, Louis is fine - thanks, Adam, I'll follow up those leads. Adambrowne666 (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

January 24

Argentina and the Falklands during WWII - general questions

I have been reading some editorials from Argentine newspapers during WWII, and I am surprised by the absence of any discussion of the Falklands issue. Considering that Britain was tied up in an existential crisis, what prevented Argentina from annexing the Falklands? Were the islands strategically valuable enough to the British to justify diverting scarce resources to defend them? Were Argentine politicians simply not concerned about the Falklands at that time? Was Argentina leery of any such action due to internal anti-fascist sentiment? Wouldn't pro-Axis Argentines have been particularly eager to annex the Falklands? Was there ever any discussion of a "trade" whereby Britain would have relinquished the islands in return for Argentine assistance in the war? LANTZY^TALK 02:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In that Juan Peron was a possible fascist with ties to Nazi Germany (these ties being demonstrated post-WW2, when Argentina became a haven for Nazis), and was VP starting in 1944, soon to be President, any action taken against any of the Allies might have gotten Argentina lumped in with the Axis Powers. If so, I expect their actions would have been ignored until Germany surrendered, at which point the full force of the British and US Atlantic fleets would have been brought to bear against Argentina, perhaps attacking more than just the Falklands. StuRat (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Seizing the Falklands would be tantamount to declaring war under any circumstances, much less during a global conflict in which an attack on the UK would assuredly incur the wrath of the rest of the Allies. Isolated with a long indefensible border, Argentina would be committing national suicide, not right away, but eventually. Brazilian President Getúlio Vargas seemed to favor the Axis as well, but he knew which side his bread was buttered on. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Offhand, I can't think of anything worthwhile Argentina could trade either. According to Argentine Navy#20th century, in 1940, it had two old battleships, three modern cruisers, a dozen destroyers and three submarines. The army and air force would be irrelevant, since they'd be pretty far from the action. By D-Day and afterward, the Allies had enough trouble supplying their own forces. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Britain was one of the world's leading powers during World War II, and was much more powerful in military and economic terms than it was in 1982. As such, it's likely that the Argentines would have believed that going to war with the UK over some economically worthless islands was a really bad idea. The 1982 war was also a bad idea for much the same reasons, but the UK was militarily weaker and the Argentine government was desperate and dumb. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

According to The Falkland Islands Museum & National Trust "In 1942 a garrison was posted to protect the Islands in case of attack by the Japanese. The main body of this garrison was the 11th Battalion of the West Yorks, replaced by a smaller garrison of the Royal Scots in 1944." So apparently no perceived threat from Argentina at the War Office. Alansplodge (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Either that, or they made very sure the Argies were fully aware of the strength of the troops in the Falklands. After all, it is not like the Falklands were a likely target for the Japanese.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Only if the Japanese were desperately short of sheep. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Until the 1970s Argentina had no real interest in the Falklands, South Georgia, or the South Sandwich Islands. They're as far away from anywhere as it's possible to get, with (then) no strategic and negligible economic value. The waters around them contain only fish and whales, which can be harvested from a home port on the Argentine mainland much more affordably. But by the '70s the realistic prospect of future mineral extraction on continental Antarctica, and later offshore oil extraction, became a foreseeable prospect. Ownership of the Falklands (et al) gives the UK a claim on these (claims that overlap and conflict with Argentina's). Elimination of those claims is in Argentina's long-term economic interest, maintenance of them in the UK's. 87.113.28.157 (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Would the advent of Exclusive Economic Zones be another relevant factor? Nowadays, owning a small isolated group of islands gives control over marine resources in a large swathe of the ocean, which I don't think was the case during the second world war. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As our article states "...the Galtieri government hoped to mobilise Argentines' long-standing patriotic feelings towards the islands and thus divert public attention from the country's chronic economic problems and the regime's ongoing human rights violations". I believe that's the real reason. StuRat (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

When I was in Buenos Aires several years ago, you could buy little pins at most newsstands with an outline of the islands in Argentine colors and sometimes "Las Malvinas son Argentinas" or some shortening. I brought home one or two, I recall. So they still remember.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Mormonism and the US Presidency

I'm not American and won't be voting, so this isn't a POV question.

I watch US politics with interest. (It's so very different from our politics here in Australia.) In my lifetime I've seen the first Catholic President and the first black President. In neither case did that "first time" characteristics seem to make any major difference to the behaviour of the President, despite massive fears (and fear-mongering) among and by some opponents before their election.

A possibility right now is the first Mormon president. Now I'm sure Romney is a wise politician, and not dumb enough to impose all values of his faith on the country on the day of his inauguration, but what are those values? You see, we don't have many Mormons here, apart from those well dressed missionary boys, mostly from the US, who knock on our doors at times. What do Mormons believe in that is significantly different from the mainstream American political and social direction? HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Try Mormonism#Theological_foundations and Mormonism and Christianity and see if those answer your questions. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A true-blue Mormon has to believe in the literal truth of the Book of Mormon, which is pretty wacky. Historically the religion was associated with polygamy. They disavow it now, but the association still remains present in people's minds. Beyond that they are not a whole lot different from other very conservative Christian sects. Looie496 (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(ecX2) Note that the President wouldn't be able to impose his values on the nation, in any case. But, here are some values and actions of Mormonism at odds with many Americans:

1) Originally, Mormons believed in multiple wives, and a few breakaway sects still do. This also seems to imply they don't believe that women should be treated as equals, since they didn't have that right.

2) The core of their belief system is that Joseph Smith was an American prophet, who communicated with God.

3) The Mormons were briefly at war with the US, after they massacred a wagon train of US citizens. At the conclusion of that war, they agreed to give up plural marriages. StuRat (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have never read the Book of Mormon, so I can't say I know a lot about the subject. However, I do know that Mormons consider their faith a branch of Christianity. Like most devout Christians in the U.S., devout Mormons tend to have socially conservative views: against homosexuality, against pornography, against abortion, etc. However, not all Mormons feel this way, and there have been Mormons elected to office as Democrats too. Anyway, Mitt Romney is from Massachusetts and, despite what he might say during the primary campaign, is generally thought of as a "Main Street Republican" more concerned about economic issues than social ones. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There hasn't really been a lot of talk about Mormonism in this campaign, at least not officially. It's a touchy area. And ironically enough, the current darling of the right wing, Newt Gingrich, is much closer to being a de facto polygamist than Mitt Romney is, so far as is known. Romney, Santorum and Obama all pass the "family values" litmus test, and Gingrich fails it miserably. Which suggests that the voters aren't all that concerned with social issues either. Almost all of the debates have been dominated by discussions about money... as Tom Lehrer once said, "the one thing all Americans sincerely and deeply believe in." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

From an archaeological perspective, Mormons believe in some strange things, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon outlines it pretty well. Heiro 05:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

How significant is archaeology in US electoral politics? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk)~

We have more fossils in office than you might think. —Kevin Myers 07:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The OP asked what Mormons believe in that are significantly different from mainstream America, and although s/he focused on politics, I thought they might be interested in some of the other non-mainstream beliefs of the group. Since one of the tenets of the religion is that the Book of Mormon was "translated" with divine help, many believe that it is a factual account of ancient North America, that Native Americans are the descendants of Jewish exiles, that Jesus appeared here to them(Native Americans) after he died but before he ascended to heaven, and plenty of other non-mainstream things. Since I primarily edit Native American archaeological subjects here I occasionally run across the subject of Mormons and archaeology. And while many Mormons declare themselves to be just another branch of Christianity, they do have beliefs that are significantly different from other denominations. I find it interesting and I thought the OP would as well, since they stated that they do not have much experience with Mormon beliefs. My apologies if no one else does. Heiro 07:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, Mormons don't believe in anything dumber than any other form of Christianity. They just don't have two thousand years of tradition to back it up. In the year 4000 it probably won't seem so strange. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

How is it significant that Mormons used to support polygamy? Plenty of people in the Bible have two or more wives. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That is true. However, we don't do lots of things that were done in the Bible. Public stonings, for example. Polygamy is what stuck in people's craws although there were certainly other divisions between Mormons and other Americans. Utah got statehood well after neighboring states (1896) and the state was required to ban polygamy at the outset, I believe in its constitution. This followed many years of unrest and sometimes fairly nasty relations between the Mormons and Washington. This is a complicated story that does not reduce well to a paragraph. However what people remember is the polygamy. You might do well to research the presidential run of George Romney, his dad, in 1968 and see what attitudes were expressed then.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Having just read through the article on George Romney, I was a bit surprised to learn that he Mormonism wasn't really an issue back then. At that time, the Mormon orthodoxy had some pretty racist views (as did many others) but he defied them to support the Civil Rights movement. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"Mainstream" Christians would say that New Testament passages such as 1 Timothy 3:1-2 are relevant. Moreover, even the Old Testament is not that enthusiastic about large harems (1 Kings 11). AnonMoos (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Does Romney abstain from alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea, like many Mormons, in accord with modern Mormon practice? Wine is commonly served at state dinners in the White House, but there have been tee-totalling Presidents in the past. Such total abstention would be out of the American mainstream, but not unheard of. As for polygamy, his great-grandfather Miles Romney left the US with his four wives and moved to Mexico with a splinter group of Mormons who wanted to practice polygamy, which is why his father was born in Mexico and later immigrated to the US. I've read that Romney is eligible for Mexican citizenship because his father was born there. He has many Romney cousins still living in Colonia Juarez, Mexico. Edison (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If he does (and I have no knowledge one way or another), I wouldn't think it would be an issue at all. Most Mormons I have known personally have been abstainers without being prohibitionists, and if Romney abstains, I would think he fits into that mold as well. That is, even if Romney doesn't smoke or drink alcohol or coffee or tea it doesn't mean that he's interested in stopping anyone else from doing so. I think many Mormons recognize that others don't abide by the same dietary restrictions they do. If we had a Jewish president, I don't think people (meaning any people with half a brain) would seriously think such a president would impose any bans on bacon or lobster even if they themselves wouldn't partake of it. Likewise with a Mormon president, I don't know that one would see any ban on such substances. It should also be noted that not all Presidents are known for following the professed tenets of their religion in terms of their politics. Richard Nixon was a Quaker, a sect which is overtly pacifist; a stance which I don't think Nixon himself held too closely in the political sphere. Religion in American politics is not unlike sex or money: people don't mind if you have it, as long as you don't talk about it in mixed company. --Jayron32 18:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Although we have had Presidents who referred to what they thought God wanted them to do, most notably George W. Bush. He was a mainstream Protestant, though, so people didn't find this quite as objectionable as if someone with a wackier religion started saying such things. StuRat (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Bush, didn't he say he was a self reformed alcoholic who became a teetotaller earlier in his life? I see we have a George W. Bush substance abuse controversy which suggests this is indeed the case (although mentions cases when he was possibly drinking during his presidency). So there was a self proclaimed tee-totaller in the White House less then 4 years ago. Nil Einne (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Romney has stated that his drink of choice is caffeine-free Diet Coke, which goes along with the Mormon prohibition against caffeine. Surely as Governor of Massachusetts, Romney had official dinners, does anybody know if alcohol was served then? What about when he was the Head of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

He abstains from alcohol and tobacco, except for once when he was a 'wayward teenager' [19] (he is also listed in List of teetotalers). [20] suggests he holds meet-n-greets in coffee houses but potentially does not drink coffee. [21] quotes a spokesperson who says he doesn't drink alcohol, tea or coffee or use tobacco but does drink Vanilla Coke and potentially other caffeinated soft drinks (they aren't specifically prohibited according to the common understanding of his faith) but would prefer not to discuss religious issues. IMO the later seems to be supported by his historic behaviour. As Mwalcoff said, he seems more main stream then his rivals in many areas and from a religious POV seems less interested in involving his religion then recent president mentioned above.

As also mentioned by someone else, considering the alleged behaviour of one of the other republican candidates, the historic polygamy thing seems a non-issue.

To use another random example with some relation to his religious beliefs, his views on evolution [22] don't seem too bad, although although of course it can be difficult to know how genuine such statements are during the middle of a campaign. As a case in point one remaining candidate who is/was a medical doctor gave some fairly bizzare comments in his 2007/2008 campaign but as I understand it later came out with a less strange sentiment in a book.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the above answers miss the mark here somewhat. The question was not, "How does Mormon doctrine differ from other churches?" The question was "What do Mormons believe that is significantly different from the mainstream American political and social direction?" As a so-called "Mormon," I'd have to answer that there isn't really a political belief that we ALL share, other than perhaps the land known as the United States of America is a special place that was divinely prepared with a Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, which made it fertile ground for what we believe to be the restoration of Jesus Christ's original church. It is true that most Mormons are politically conservative, but some aren't. It is true that almost all Mormons consider abortion to be morally wrong, but some don't. Members of the church are scattered across the political spectrum from Conservative to Liberal, Traditionalist to Progressive, Republican to Democrat, and every point in between (or beyond!). We do not vote en masse, and in fact, we are cautioned over the pulpit at least once before each election that the Church as an entity must remain strictly neutral in regard to specific candidates. The Church does involve itself at times in questions of political policy when its leaders feel that a moral issue is in question (for example, Proposition 8 in California, Parimutual Gambling in Utah, or the Equal Rights Amendment). I could go through most of the above answers and take issue with inaccuracies, but I don't have the time, or the energy. My original point is probably my best one-- let's make sure we actually answer the question being asked Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 21:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Vaguely on the topic, the White Horse Prophecy (I reviewed it for GA) is quite interesting. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

To address the original question: I don't think practicing Mormons have values that different in everyday life than conservative Protestants or Catholics. Among Americans, they're generally just known for their politeness and abstention from caffeine. All About Mormons is a pretty interesting treatment of the issue [23]. Romney himself seems to wish he could keep faith private, which is notably different than, say, Rick Perry. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

President of the United States whose most recent service was House of Representatives

If Newt Gingrich should become President, would he be the first President since Abraham Lincoln whose most recent federal service was as a member of the House of Representatives? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

According to List of Presidents of the United States by other offices held, you've got Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield and William McKinley (all Ohioans). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

McKinley and Hayes served as governors after being in the House. According to our article, though, Garfield went directly from the House to the presidency. Looie496 (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I missed Garfield. Thanks. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Governors are at the state level, not federal, so I don't think governorship matters for the purpose of the question. RudolfRed (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Garfield was also a senator-elect. The state legislatures then designated senators, and had elected him before the 1880 campaign to begin his service in 1881. Our articles says in late 1879 but I suspect that is wrong and it is January 1880. I do not believe he was ever sworn in as a senator. But a unique situation: Garfield was a congressman running for president, and even if he lost, he'd be promoted to senator. McKinley was defeated in the House in 1890; the Democrats basically redistricted him out of every Republican vote they could, McKinley was controversial for having sponsored a tariff bill that had raised prices, and he still only lost narrowly. As there was no assurance the Republicans could regain control of the legislature in 1891 and redistrict McKinley into a friendly seat (there was then no ten year limit on redistricting) and as that meant he would spend two years out of office, he and his advisors decided on a run for governor, which was an excellent bully pulpit to look presidential from as there were then few duties to the positon, and he was elected in 1891 and 1893, setting himself up nicely for a presidential bid.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia books

Why are wikipedia articles showing up in google book search as books? http://books.google.com/books?id=wtuiSgAACAAJ. Isn't this bad?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

They're licensed copyleft, so any "publishers" can reprint them if they follow the requisite licensing instructions. Google Books is not very discriminatory. If someone has bothered to pay for an ISBN for something, they'll put it in the catalog. The idea is likely to sell copies of the eBook through various marketplaces. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

For some reason that I fail to understand, Books LLC thinks there is a market for collecting some loosely related Wikipedia articles together and publishing them as a real book. I wonder if the "...free access to book updates online..." is simply a Wikipedia URL? And I wonder what's with the "...free trial membership in the publisher's book club"? Astronaut (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Memphis desegregation

When was the city of Memphis desegregated? I found an article online that says the schools were desegregated in 1954. The city had to have preceded this. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Why did the city have to go first ? And, for that matter, what does it mean to say the city was desegregated ? They may have had a segregated police force, fire department, buses, etc., and various segregation laws in effect, and I doubt if they all ended at once. As for where people choose to live, there is still a remarkable degree of self-segregation in many cities to this day. StuRat (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

School desegregation followed from the national Supreme Court decision Brown v Board of Education with "all deliberate speed", while many other types of segregation were contested on a very local level until well into the 1960s... AnonMoos (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw an article, I believe in the New York Times, about recent (mostly black) students in Memphis being allowed to attend schools in the rest of Shelby County due to merger of school districts. Such articles probably discuss desegregation there. I find the 1954 date likely dubious and a mistaken understanding of Brown. Few school districts desegregated immediately in the wake of Brown, even those proceeding in good faith required some period of planning to re-do school attendance lines, etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

getting in touch with Valerie Browne Lester

hi - this is after an edit conflict - I'm writing on behalf of my father, a descendent of Phiz; he is very eager to contact the abovenamed author, but we're having trouble finding a way to do so - can anyone help?

I hope it's ok my posting another question while I have 2 others current on the desks.

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It's sort of roundabout; but her son's Web site has a contact page, and if you explain to him why you'd like to contact her, he'd probably be willing to give you her e-mail address. Deor (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Another way would be to contact one of her publishers either to ask for contact information or to ask them to relay a message to her. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Much more likely he'd pass it on; contact information is often intentionally difficult to get.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks heaps, all, for the detective work! Will try her son first of all - would be interested to get in touch with him anywayAdambrowne666 (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Worked a treat, thanks again! - he's very approachable, and we're now in touch with Valerie, who is delighted to begin a correspondence. I just wonder how you knew how to find her son, Deor? Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the mainstream economists' view of the New Deal?

According to the article Great Depression, the common view among mainstream economists is that FDR's New Deal accelerated the recovery, however this claim is unsourced. I am curious as to what the mainstream view is on the New Deal and the effect that it had on the recovery, and whether it did indeed accelerate the recovery or prolonged the depression. A source would be nice, too. 124.171.112.28 (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not think a generalization can be made here. Clearly different economists are going to take different views on this. Since we cannot compare it with a world in which Hoover won a second term, it is all theory anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want sources, start with New_Deal#Critical_interpretations_of_New_Deal_economic_policies and follow the footnotes in that section. --Jayron32 18:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the mainstream economists might say "While the New Deal lessened the suffering of the Great Depression, preventing a potential communist revolution in the US, it also laid the seeds of big government which, in subsequent decades, have led to out of control government spending and the unsustainable debt burden we currently face". For those who don't think there was a real danger of a communist revolution, had people been left to fend for themselves, I suggest reading The Grapes of Wrath. StuRat (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Some mainstream economists would say that, but I think that the mainstream encompasses a range of positions on the question. For example, Ben Bernanke and Paul Krugman are both mainstream economists by any reasonable definition. Both support government stimulus as a response to economic recession or depression, and neither seems to think that current government spending is "out of control". Marco polo (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Borrowing money to stimulate the economy during recessions makes sense, it's borrowing more money during good times that makes no sense whatsoever (that's when the money borrowed previously should have been paid off). StuRat (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd be surprised to see economists use such loaded political terms as "big government," but StuRat is right on the possibility of a communist revolt. Without the New Deal, there's strong indication the US economy would have progressed from depression to outright collapse, which is a ripe environment for a change of regime. It took the New Deal combined with WW2 industrial spending to bring the economy back. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Big C, no; little c, possibly. The more enduring threat than a "communist revolt" is that the US employers be forced into something like the Australian Arbitration system—as a way to cripple an even more threatening workers movement. TBH, comrades, fascism (militant, populist, change driven, right wing politics) is far more likely a result of system collapse in the US in the 1930s. The networks of proletarian consciousness were limited due to the evisceration of the IWW in the 1920s, and didn't start to rebuild until late in the 1930s with the CIO. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"Default through inflation"

In the book "This Time Is Different" by Reinhart and Rogoff, the authors repeatedly talk about governments 'defaulting through high inflation': using high inflation to erode away defaults and how hyperinflation is essentially equivalent to default. I must admit, I don't think I fully understand what they're going on about here. I can't find much information on the concept online which is accessible to a layman (I am certainly by no means an economist!), and was hoping someone might be able to walk me through the basics of how this works.

I can see that inflation reflects a decrease in the actual tangible value of a currency (you can use it to buy less goods, simple enough), and yet at the same time, if the government has a debt of say £100 (I'm looking at you, UK) and massive inflation occurs putting up the price of goods and services, the government will still owe the same debt of £100: it hasn't actually become any 'cheaper' in the literal sense. Is the concept to do with the fact that a decrease in the value of their currency will mean any money the government takes in from externally (say, dollars) will be worth more GBP and therefore the debt will be more manageable? I suspect not - I think forex rates are a different matter entirely, and I expect governments would not want to rely on foreign currencies to service their own debt. However, I can't see how then they have "inflated the debt away".

Is it meant to be a sort of 'trickle-down effect', whereby a decreasing value of money means businesses take in more money, higher wages must be paid to compensate for higher cost of living etc and since people have a greater amount of money (in quantity, not value), the government can tax more (in quantity) and thus pay off its debts which are, relatively speaking, smaller? Any simple-ish explanation as to what's going on when a government cuts debt through inflation would be extremely appreciated - many thanks in advance, 86.26.13.2 (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Imagine that I owe you £100 at a fixed interest rate.. That's about €115 right now. If the inflation in the UK is going up I just could sit here and wait until my €115 become something like £110, which could save me money, since my debt is still the nominal £100 at a fixed interest rate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.231.17.82 (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

But that only works if you're using a currency external to the one the debt is in; otherwise your £100 will always be £100 no matter what happens to inflation - so it is a case of using other currencies to 'step outside' the inflation of the currency the debt is in? 86.26.13.2 (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the point is, if people used to make thousands of dollars and now they make millions of dollars (but can buy no more at the grocery store than before), then they can pay hundreds of thousands in taxes and paying that $100 is a petty transaction. It is obviously not default in the legal sense, as the exact amount of money is repaid - that's the point. Wnt (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The government doesn't need two currencies to reduce your debt through inflation. It has heavily borrowed at a rate of, let's say, 5%. If inflation goes up, it will lend money at a higher rate, and so increase its income. 88.8.69.246 (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, it works something like this. Suppose $1 = £1. (This is just an example). The Government A, which uses dollars, owes Government B £1000. They decide to print new dollars and pay off the loan. They give Government B $1000. However, printing all this money will cause hyperinflation. So maybe $100 = £1 now. So the $1000 they paid is actually only worth £10. So instead of getting £1000, government B gets £10 from government A, even though the debt is paid in full. I may be completely wrong, but I think this is what it is talking about. Eomund (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's far simpler than all of that. Remember that money represents goods and services. Inflation means an increase in price of all goods and services (or a decrease in value compared to those goods or services). The government gets its money as a percentage of incomes, profits and sales and inflation increases the nominal value of each of those. So when a government prints a tonne of money, tax receipts (in nominal terms) go up, but the (nominal) value of the debt does not. Suddenly it becomes easier to pay off. Alternatively the government could just give the printed money to its lenders, but most countries cannot do that by law. 124.148.55.187 (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it is true that "most" countries can't do that. Developed, western economies tend to have a separation between the government and the central bank, but that is far from universal. --Tango (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Its really simple. Country XLD owes you XLD 1000, which now amounts to 1 bar of gold, or someone cleaning your house for a year, or 60 flat screen TVs. Then XLD prints money, and more money, and even more, trying to break Zimbabwe's record. Of course, people see XLD printing and printing and understand that there is no magic extra production backing up all that printing. All the XLD money suddenly seems to be what it is: paper and ink. (Even if there was extra production they shouldn't be printing anyway, because they still would be stealing, but that's a slightly different subject). After a year, XLD still owes you XLD 1000, but the value of 1000 XLD is now just 0.0001 bar of gold, or 2 minutes of work, or 2 square inch of a TV. So when they finally give you your money back, its worthless. So they do give back the money they owed you instead of saying "sorry, we can't pay you", but you end up with nothing. Or, in the case when they only inflate their currency with 10%, with less than you expected. Joepnl (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Pope Gregory XI

I notice that in Papal conclave, 1370 it says that Cardinal Pierre Roger de Beaufort first opposed his election but eventually accepted. Is there further details somewhere as to who or what convinced Beaufort to accept his nomination?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Cardinal de Beaufort became Gregory XI: awkward wording for a reluctant candidate.--Wetman (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec)All of the other Wikipedias that have a topic on that belong to traditionally Catholic cultures - sadly, they're not much more help - they all state he initially refused before accepting (indicating it's a noteworthy part), but the French one adds that this was 'according to common custom' - none of them have sources for the statement, and I can't immediately find anything to back up that suggestion. (Possibly not so helpful, but at least that's a few potential sources of help ruled out, and an idea to check out :)) --Saalstin (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(Ah, Wetman and I have read this two different ways - Doug, if you were asking 'Why did the Cardinal oppose the election of Pope Gregory XI', the answer is, as Wetman said, he was elected to the post and initially refused to serve before giving in. If you're asking 'Why did he refuse his own election?', that's what I was going at) --Saalstin (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I am mostly interested in who ultimately convinced Beaufort to accept the post.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't found a reference for who convinced him, but aside from the usual theatrics of reluctance, he was also a cardinal nephew who had titles and honours heaped upon him as a child and young adult. He wasn't even an ordained priest when he was elected pope. He was only ordained on January 4, the day before his consecration. Since, by all accounts, he was of excellent morals, and a scholar in canon law, maybe he opposed the election on legal grounds. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

In the Borgia TV-series the Dean told Rodrigo that it was common custom to answer no to the first acceptasne question and yes only to the second. Rodrigo accepted this, though unwillingly. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate answers to my question.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

January 25

What makes a fictional work existential

Why people say that some fictional works - films and books - are existential? What has to happen in the work? Since many, or almost all, films and books could be a reflexion on our human life somehow, wouldn't the term existential be almost meaningless? 88.8.69.246 (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A nice line from the intro of our article on Existentialism: "In existentialism, the individual's starting point is characterized by what has been called 'the existential attitude', or a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world." That's jibes with what I've usually associated with works existential fiction or film. There are plenty of works of art which do not fit into this category: they are about showing or glorifying order, or meaning, or success. Concrete examples: An existentialist war film, for example, would be about the meaningless or absurdity of war (think Catch-22 or Apocalypse Now). A non-existentialist war film, by contrast, would be about the glory of war, soldiers, or technology, or what have you (think Saving Private Ryan or Lawrence of Arabia (film)). Now you could say, there are plenty of glorifying war films that have absurdity in them; but it's not the entire point of them, it's not the conclusion of them. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Existential works, on some level, get you to question your very existence, or the meaning of existence. Sometimes, it's a very direct and blatant, like how in Existenz or The Matrix, the characters are constantly talking about whether they're living in a simulation or not. But it can be very subtle, too, like how in Citizen Kane people wonder what Kane is really like ... and Kane himself wonders who he really is. --M@rēino 22:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Does India get its oil from the Strait of Hormuz?

Does India get some of its oil supply from the Strait of Hormuz? 99.245.83.28 (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No, but it does from "Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, the UAE and Kuwait" via the Strait. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Also note that it wouldn't particularly matter, in that world oil prices would shoot up if Iran mined the Straight, so even those who get oil from other sources would be affected. StuRat (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Strait...--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I see I'm in Dire Straits, spelling-wise. And Hormuz isn't even a straight strait. I just hope our crooked politicians will straighten out this mess, not just tell Iran to get bent. StuRat (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The oil prices will go up, by any real problem like mines or imaginary, like silly politicians from both sides talking about war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.36.33.29 (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I would expect the prices to go up far more from mining than just talking about it, since then you have both the panic and the actual reduction of supply. It does make me wonder if oil companies pay off Iran to make such threats, so they can justify increasing prices, though. StuRat (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't need oil companies to profit from Iranian threats. Just buy future options for oil. 88.8.69.246 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

the 17th century equivalent of 'decor'

This is a question I posed at Language, which people had trouble answering - the consensus, finally, was 'furnishings' - I wonder if someone here might be able to find something different? It's possible there was no word for it until 'decor' was coined....

Here's the original question: Decor is a 19th Century term; was there some equivalent that was current in English or French in the 1650s? Our interior design article is very heavy on US designers - I was hoping for something earlier, obviously: I suppose 'interior design' must be a very recent phrase - I wonder what term it replaced...

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The words appoint and appointment(s) are now somewhat pretentious but have been used of furnishings in the 16th Century. The OED gives, for sense 15 of appoint, the quote "Their several Lodgings, which were as well appointed as such a season would permit." (1664). And for appointment, from a private letter from 1575, "Hiz honorz exquisit appointment of a beautifull garden." It seems from the other quotes that these words were more often used of clothes, but they certainly could apply to a room or a garden.--Rallette (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a little from the OED that might be of use to you.

furniture:

"4. ... d. Hangings and ornamental drapery; also, the coverlets and linen for a bed. ...

1683 T. Tryon Way to Health 586 Most People take care that their Furnitures are daily brushed and rubbed."

"7. ... a. (The prevailing sense.) Movable articles, whether useful or ornamental, in a dwelling-house, place of business, or public building. Formerly including also the fittings. (†Occas. const. as pl.) ...

1637 Documents against Prynne (Camden) 99 My interest in the lease of Swanswick, and my hangings, pictures, and furniture there."

decoration:

"2. That which decorates or adorns; an ornament, embellishment; esp. an ornament temporarily put up on some special occasion; formerly used (after the French) of scenery on the stage.

a1678 A. Marvell Wks. (1875) II. 208 (R.) Our church did even then exceed the Romish in ceremonies and decorations."

household:

†3. The contents or appurtenances of a house considered collectively; household goods or furniture. Obs.

1621 in S. Tymms Wills & Inventories Bury St. Edmunds (1850) 167 Desiringe him‥he would bestowe some of my howsholde of my brother Nicke."

design [I think this one captures at least one meaning of our contemporary 'decor' particularly well):

"7. ... a. The combination of artistic details or architectural features which go to make up a picture, statue, building, etc.; the artistic idea as executed; a piece of decorative work, an artistic device.

1644 J. Evelyn Mem. (1857) I. 73, I was particularly desirous of seeing this palace, from the extravagance of the design.

1670 Sir S. Crow in 12th Rep. Royal Comm. Hist. MSS (1890) App. v. 15 Their ordnary designes [in tapestry]‥beeing deformed and mishapen."

--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 12:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that does help Adambrowne666 (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WWII pilot commemorative plush toy

I'm trying to find a Pappy the Black Sheep plush toy. It's a sheep wearing a black outfit. It's supposed to represent the Black Sheep Squadron. Where can I find such a plush toy? Anyone know?24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Here's one merchant. And here's another. However, I have never ordered from either one, so I don't know their reputations. --M@rēino 22:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much.24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

David Stuart (Michigan politician) : cause of miltary career brutal end in 1863 ?

Hello Learned Humanitarians ! I translated into WP french "David Stuart (Michigan politician)", & am doing the same for Political general (& BTW a lot of thanks for the text !) .

It seems that before and during the Vicksburg Campaign D. Stuart has been faithfull to Sherman and Grant rather to McClernand. He resigned from the Union Army in April, 1863.

Are there any proofs that D. Stuart's nomination as brig.gen. was refused by the US Senate because John A. McClernand's friends vetoed against it ?

Thanks ++++ beforehand for your answers Arapaima (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Egg coddler

Where can I buy an egg coddler online in the UK?? Amisom (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Let me google that for you. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=egg+coddler&hl=en&tbm=shop

--M@rēino 22:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I'm from the UK, but I'd never heard of coddled eggs. I had to look it up. However, I have heard of poached eggs, which seem to be quite similar, and you can get egg poachers on almost any High Street. Argos have one, for instance. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No they'e a bit different. If memory serves it's a little china cup (with a metal lid) that you break your egg into, stand it in boiling water and then eat it out of the cup when cooked. There are lots online; click on the Google search link above. Alansplodge (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

January 26

Theoretical stance of Australian Labour and Liberal parties

Could someone advise me as to what is the theoretical stance of the Australian Liberal and Labour parties? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.172.126.65 (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Stance on what issue specifically? Wikipedia has articles titled Australian Labor Party and Liberal Party of Australia which discusses the parties political philosophies in some detail. Is that what you are looking for? --Jayron32 05:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Russian Revolution reasons

What were major reasons for the Russian Revolution (and later the Russian Civil War)? Was World War I was a reason? Is it likely that if WWI was reduced to the July Crisis that the revolution would happen at all? Thanks! 64.229.180.189 (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this a homework question? It sounds like one. I'm guessing from your reference to the July Days that you mean the October Revolution; that article should provide some useful pointers. Note that "if not for X, would the revolution have happened at all?" questions are never going to be definitively settled. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 16:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The reasons for the Russian Revolution are multitudinous and not easily explained in a few sentances. Which is why I am going to try to do just that. Several issues:

• Backwardness of Russia towards its lower classes, especially compared to other contemporary societies. Socially, Russia had been at least a century "behind the times" compared to other societies. Russia ended serfdom only 50 years before this, see Emancipation reform of 1861. Most Western societies, with whom the Russian monarchy had long tried to align itself, had ended such state long before then. Russia was still an agrarian society even in the early 20th century, the "Industrial Revolution" had completely skipped Russia. When people are in a backwards state, and are aware that they are in such a state, because the rest of the world is "passing them by", this is a recipe for disaster. This created a lot of tension within Russian society, a tension capitalized on by the Bolsheviks et al.
• Russia had been "revolting" for some decades before the "Big one". The importance of things like the Revolution of 1905, the February Revolution followed by the ineffectiveness of the Alexander Kerensky-led Russian Provisional Government, etc. cannot be underestimated. In large part, the most famous phase of the revolutions, the October Revolution that swept the Communists into power, was largely a result of said Communists taking advantage of a situation rather than causing it directly themselves. Russia had been weakened by others for some time, and the Communists shrewdly waited until they could capitalize on it.
• Russia's failures in WWI cannot be discounted at all; many Russians felt that the War was going badly. Initially, there was widespread support for the War, but it became perceived that the Russian leadership was screwing it up badly. Sadly, the Karensky government continued to fight the war, but had little more success (see Kerensky Offensive). Indeed, it is likely that the decision to continue in the war, more than anything else, is what brought down Karensky's government and led to the October revolution, as Lenin's group espoused withdrawal from the war almost from the first.

All of these ideas probably fed the stew that was necessary to create the conditions for the October revolution. Had Russia more agressively modernized, socially, or had Russia been more effective in fighting the war, or had the Karensky government withdrawn from the war and concentrated on securing the homefront rather than fighting a foreign war, etc. etc. then the Bolsheviks may not have ever been able to gain power. The Bolsheviks never represented anything like the majority will of the Russian people, what they had was shrewed timing, good strategy, and a willingess to be brutal. That will carry a well-organized group a LONG way in bringing themselves into power. --Jayron32 17:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bolsheviks also had some help from the Germans [24], because they (correctly) thought it would hasten Russia's exit from the war. They didn't foresee the consequences. Alansplodge (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I just want to point out that the book you've linked to in defense of that is a little bit nutty — grand conspiracy theories about Wall Street and the Bolsheviks mixed with the idea that FDR and Hitler are more or less the same (see Antony C. Sutton). He doesn't go down the standard anti-Semitic path, but I wouldn't call it reliable. It doesn't detract from your point (which is true nonetheless) other than looking like a semi-arbitrarily chosen source... --Mr.98 (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, how embarrassing. It really was "a semi-arbitrarily chosen source". Is this better? Alansplodge (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are the causes in a nutshell. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That source mentions Rasputin, which I also planned to mention. He was very unpopular, and his association with the royal family made them very unpopular, too. Other Russian aristocrats, not wanting the whole system to be dragged down by him, killed him off, but apparently too late. StuRat (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Rasputin's role in causing the revolution tends to get WAY overblown because he's a wacky character, and wacky characters make a good narrative. But ultimately, Rasputin is a product of the Great Man theory way of thinking about history; that individuals with powerful personalities can move history. If you really get down do it, Rasputin's role was to alienate the royal family from the rest of the Russian nobility, but I'm not sure that had much to do with the social and economic factors that led to the widespread unrest during the first decades of the 20th century. It would be like claiming that Monica Lewinsky caused the Dot-com bubble at the end of the 1990s. Just because Rasputin was "in the news" and was damaging to the credibility of the royal family doesn't mean he had much to do with the Revolution. Being around at the same time doesn't make one a cause of the events. --Jayron32 05:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Cartilage, Curtilage

So I read this: "the farmhouse where [person A] and his family lived, which is within the cartilage of the farm". I've never heard of "cartilage" as an architectural term, so I looked it up in the OED, which listed no meaning that made sense in this context. But there is the similar word "curtilage" (a small court, yard, garth, or piece of ground attached to a dwelling-house, and forming one enclosure with it, etc), which does make sense in this context.

Normally I would just dismiss the original usage of "cartilage" as a typo, but where I saw it was a judgment of the High Court of England and Wales, and you'd expect judges (or their associates) to know technical legal terms (which OED suggests "curtilage" to be); plus a brief google search turns up a few mentions of "cartilages" in relation to farm houses. So does anyone know if there is a possible meaning of "cartilage" that would make sense here, or is it really a typo? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"Curtilage" seems to be a term in common use with UK planning authorities: "The term "curtilage"... refers to the land in the ownership of the householder, thus including any buildings, driveways and gardens within your property boundary."[25] See also [26]. I strongly suspect that this is a spellcheck error; a "Did you mean cartilage?" sort of thing. Alansplodge (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably an autocorrect error. I work for a housing authority, and have to type the word "curtilage" from time to time. The spellchecker doesn't recognise it, and if autocorrect is on it'll always change it to "cartilage". --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Also in the US: Curtilage.Sjö (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm surprised that Microsoft omit "curtilage" from their spelling dictionary (as do other electronic dictionary providers) because it is actually an older word than cartilage, going back to the thirteenth century, according to the OED. I've just added "curtilage" to two custom dictionaries. Does anyone know of a list of words that "ought" to be in spellcheck dictionaries but are often missing, then I could add them all at once. Wiktionary is too inclusive for my purposes because it included many common mis-spellings and words of dubious authenticity. Dbfirs 12:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Girard, Philadelphy

Dear Sir, Madame,

I have been looking into Stephen Girard's Records: The City, The Co0llege, etc.

The Information I have from my father, as I was born after my Grand'Father died. is to the effect that the family history and there are recorded genealogy to this effect; Three Girard brother, from France were sailors, navigators, (a shipwreck is possible) have landed in the Quebec Province, (close to Quebec City, at La Malbaie or Baie St Paul).

I was told that One of them migrated in Lake St John area, another remained at Aux Éboulements, and the third migrated to the U.S.A. at the begining he would have been a trader, ammunitions as well as slaves, to later become a State Governor, and then interested in educationb,

Bsicly he would have landed, willfully or by accident in Charlevoix, Québec, with two brothers.

Yours truly,

P. S. I like Wikipedia and use it often, I would appreciate the possibility to contact by PostMail, even receive literature about Wikipedia.

Yours truly

l'ancien — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.152.115 (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A genealogist would ask: Was "Stephen Girard" the grandfather? What do you mean by "The City, The Co0llege, etc.." You searched the records of some identified city and college associated with your family history, or is there a city and college named for Girard? What were the names of the brothers? When did they land ? Which one migrated to the US? Any idea of their birth or death dates? Ancestry.com has lots of data files, such as Census files, and family histories. It would be a good starting point. Edison (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you might be offering new information about Stephen Girard rather than asking a question. If you would like to present the information for discussion, you should post it at Talk:Stephen Girard.--Cam (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The article Stephen Girard mentions that he had relative in France when he died, who contested his will, but does not mention brothers, nor any connection with Canada. A reference in the article , [27], says he "came to America by way of Philadelphia in 1776" having earlier visited New York. It says he was the oldest of 9 children. (The Wikipedia article on the college says 14 children. His parents would have been pretty busy if he had 13 siblings under the age of 11, his age when she died. I will change it to 9 per the ref from the bio article). He went to sea in 1764 around age 14. No shipwrecks are mentioned. You might read "Biography of Stephen Girard," (1832) written by Stephen Simpson, available online via Google Books. I could find nothing in that biography, or in Google Book Search connecting Girard to Charlevoix, Quebec. The biography on page 37 says his brother, Captain John Girard, arrived in the US, and they formed a business at "Cape Française " (likely Cap Française, Haiti, now named Cap-Haïtien) called Girard, Bernard and Lacrampe." There was a falling out and the firm was broken up in 1790, with John getting $60,000 and Stephen $30,000. Page 42 says John died and left a large estate. Stephen's famous will, reprinted at the end of the book, mentions (Section IX) his brother Etienne Girard, who was bequeathed land near Bordeaux, France, and his late sister Sophia Girard Capayron of France. Other nieces and nephews are mentioned, but I did not find brothers named other than John of North America and Etienne of France. On page 20 of the will (number 6) Stephen Girard says New York was the "first port on the continent of North America at which I arrived," thus refuting the idea that he first landed in Quebec. A more modern biography, not available to read online, but widely available in libraries, is "Lonely midas. The story of Stephen Girard" by Harry Emerson Wildes, 1944. The widely discussed litigation about the will seems to indicate that he had no other living siblings or children of siblings when he published the will in 1830. Edison (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

January 27

Voting patterns in presidential election of 1860

Why, in the US presidential election of 1860, did all of the southern states, down to the county level, vote for Democratic candidates? Having studied election and demographic maps for a long time, something is fishy about that - people don't vote exactly according to state lines unless they have different ballots or different voting times.

To show it: File:PresidentialCounty1860.gif. You'll notice that even eastern Kentucky and Tennessee, which from the 19th century through 20th century voted Republican on the national level while there southern brethren did not (c.f. File:1892prescountymap.PNG, File:1896prescountymap.PNG, File:1900prescountymap.PNG, File:1968prescountymap2.PNG, File:1980prescountymap2.PNG, etc.) voted for Democrats in this election. Also, you'll notice sharp divisions even in the northern panhandle of Virginia (today West Virginia) between surrounding areas in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Ditto on the Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland borders. The only exception is southern Illinois (Democrat, bleeding into Western Missouri) and St. Louis suburbs (Republican, bleeding into Illinois).

What's going on here? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln wasn't on the ballot in most of the South, and had virtually no support even in those areas where he was on the paper. His victory was due to an overwhelming sweep of the free states, thanks to splits in the Northern Democrats. The formalization of the polarization of US society, by which the North's larger electorate put the South under de facto colonial rule by a party with no support, was the direct trigger of the civil war. Something similar happened in Ireland in the same period, and the same situation is happening in Scotland (with only one Tory MP, but under Tory government thanks to England's larger electorate, and thus on the verge of a unilateral declaration of independence) today. 209.137.146.50 (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln's two immediate predecessors (Democrats) sat around and watched the south get its way on the slavery question time after time. With Lincoln in office, the game was up. Had Lincoln's philosophy been as hands-off as Pierce and Buchanan's were, it's not so likely the south would have seceded. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the situation in Scotland is remotely analogous. Scotland is not by any means 'on the verge of a unilateral declaration of independence' - all major political parties in the UK support holding a referendum on the issue and abiding by the results - so it is difficult to see how a declaration of independence (which remains unlikely according to polls) could be 'unilateral'. In addition, the lack of support for conservatives in Scotland is hardly the most important factor behind support for independence - the level of support has not really changed since they came to power in Westminster. Not to mention that there are large parts of England and Wales with very few Tory MPs, and of course, there are none at all in Northern Ireland. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre -- Some things require more than looking at maps to explain. From 1853 to 1860, southerners and strongly pro-southern northerners dominated the presidency, the senate, and the supreme court, for a clear stranglehold on 2½ of the three branches of government, and a whole series of what were perceived as unilateral Slave Power aggressions (Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854, Border ruffians in Bleeding Kansas, Dred Scott, the caning of Sumner etc.) generated resentment and resistance in the north, resulting in the rise of the Republican party as a potent political force strongly committed to ending slavery expansion. Naturally the party had little support in the south -- and anyone who tried to actively campaign for the Republican party in many regions of the south would have been the target of mob violence. A final split between Douglasite Democrats and pro-southern democrats over the Freeport Doctrine and the Lecompton constitution smoothed the way for a Republican victory (though even if the Douglas, Breckinridge, and Bell votes had all been combined, Lincoln would have still won the electoral college). AnonMoos (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• It's worth mentioning that Lincoln presumably had the support of the majority of the people in a large swathe of the South -- specifically, in those parts of the South where the majority of the people were slaves. --M@rēino 14:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe -- I would tend to doubt whether most slaves outside of the "border states" and big cities knew very much about Abraham Lincoln or the Republican party in 1860, and at that time the Republicans as a party formally disclaimed any intention of acting against slavery within the existing slave states (which would have been unconstitutional as the U.S. constitution then existed). Many individuals within the Republican party wanted to do more, but the main expressed collective goal of the party was to firmly and unyieldingly oppose the expansion of slavery into new territories (not to abolish slavery in the existing slave states)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The IP above has answered my question: Lincoln was not on the ballot in the southern states. Why wasn't Lincoln on the ballot in southern states? (PS. I did not need a history lesson telling me the GOP was unpopular in the South.) Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Pachelbel's Canon/Werner Herzog/The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser

Which version of Pachelbel's Canon is this, found in Werner Herzog's The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser? Bus stop (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The music credits on this Google Books result simply credit "Pachelbel". Alansplodge (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Eureka! Pachelbel Canon (from L' énigme de Kaspar Hauser) The New London Orchestra (Performer). Alansplodge (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Great. Thank you very much. Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Video in the National Archives

Can someone find a video in the National Archives online? Does the National Archives allow wikipedia or anybody to use one of their old films/photographs free of charge? Or do they charge fees to use their materials? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Which one of them, List of national archives? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As your question below is about Hawaii, I assume you mean the US archives. If the video is the work of the federal government, it's in the public domain; otherwise, the situation will depend on the status of the creator and what permissions they've given. WP:COPY and the links there should cover every given situation. Bear in mind that Wikipedia videos are in the non-standard ogg format owing to free-use considerations. 209.137.146.50 (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If it is the US, check here and search under both "archival description" and "digital copies". A fraction is online. For the rest, someone needs to go to the national archives branch and scan it. You can hire someone to make the copies for you (the National Archive web site has lists of approved vendors) but we have good cooperation with the National Archives and often events at branches, see WP:NARA.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Congressional Visit to Hawaii in early 1900s

When exactly was the congressional visit to Hawaii in the early 1900s? Queen Liliuokalani was still alive and they paid a visit to her.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There was one where they visited her on her 71st birthday, September 2, 1909, here. There may have been others, but that was one.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

All WP articles lead to philosophy

I read about this on another website the other day and was delighted to discover that it appears to work. Pick any WP article (perhaps using the "Random article" link on the left). Click the first link in the main text of the article (i.e. not counting links in parentheses) to take you to another article. Keep doing this and sooner or later you will land on the Philosophy article. It works every time. Any theories about why this should be? Something to do with philosophy being at the root of all human endeavour, perhaps? --Viennese Waltz 08:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. I tested it. I clicked the "Random article" button and found the article Accident blackspot. Clicking the first links from this article, as you mentioned, lead to Road traffic safety, Pedestrian, Walking, Gait, Motion (physics), Physics, Natural science, Science, Knowledge, Information, Order theory, Mathematics, Quantity, Property (philosophy), Modern philosophy, Philosophy.

Another time, I found Pascal Pinard, then France, Unitary state, State (polity), Government, Legislator, Legislature, Deliberative assembly, Organization, Social group, Social science, Academic discipline, Knowledge. From knowledge, the rest is like the first.

So we can see all links will lead to the article Knowledge. This is why all articles ultimately lead to the article philosophy. HTH. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're interested in the mathematics of this, you could post it at WP:RD/M. I'm sure someone will have an idea.

However, I ran my own experiment, and starting with List of acronyms and initialisms: H, I took a few clicks to get to Latin, then a few more to Ancient Greek. However, then it was straight back to Latin. Since I was just going round in a circle there was no way to get to Philosophy, or to Knowledge. I would suggest that the number of times that you DO get to Philosophy are merely sufficient to awaken our innate sense of coincidence. Since there is no limit to the number of clicks you are allowed BEFORE hitting Philosophy, logic says that, at most, you need 3,856,235 clicks to get there.

Something that I just thought of that argues slightly in the other direction is that by definition, the first link in any given article is likely to be quite 'meta'. It normally takes the form of <x> is a subset of <y> - things like London is a city in England, Greek is an Indo European language and so on. If you imagine Wikipedia as a nested list of subjects, your general trend will be upwards in the list, and Philosophy is probably quite near the top. That's probably why the theory above uses Philosophy rather than, say, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

(To OP): you can read about it on this website too: Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

(To Cucumber Mike): the OP said discounting links in parentheses. If you follow that then you won't get stuck in the "Latin rut": List of acronyms and initialisms: H -> (Acronym) -> Acronym and initialism -> Abbreviation -> Phrase -> Word -> Language -> Human -> Species -> Biology -> Natural science -> Science -> Knowledge, and from there as described above to Philosophy. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The first try for me pointed me to a loop: Nargis Fakhri → Bollywood → Standard Hindi → Devanagari → Deva (Hinduism) → and back to Devanagari

The second try did it: Fidel Maldonado → Albuquerque, New Mexico → List of lists of settlements in the United States → United States → Federalism → Politics → Group decision making → Individual → Person → Human → Species → Biology → Natural science → Science → Knowledge → Information → Order theory → Mathematics → Quantity → Property (philosophy) → Modern philosophy

I think SupernovaExplosion is right. Knowledge is the nexus of all this. If someone rewrites its lead paragraph, we probably won't ever get to Philosophy.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason Nargis Fakhri didn't work for you is that you clicked on Devanagari which is in brackets. Click 'standardised' instead and it works. --Viennese Waltz 11:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Obsidian Soul, you should not click Standard Hindi → Devanagari because it is in parenthesis. The links are Standard Hindi → Standard language → Variety (linguistics) → Sociolinguistics → Society → Interpersonal relationship → Limerence → Psychologist → Clinical psychology → Science → Knowledge, and from there Philosophy. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, my bad.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This is fun! Zoltán Eötvös -> Hungary -> Central Europe -> Europe -> Continent -> Landmass -> Ocean -> Planet -> Astronomical object -> Entity -> Abstraction -> Hierarchy -> Ordered set -> Order theory -> Mathematics -> Quantity -> Property (philosophy) -> Modern philosophy -> Philosophy. I suppose lots of articles start with a country or nationality, which are likely to end up at Continent or Ocean or something similar. Note that Philosophy goes to Ontology, which goes straight back to Philosophy. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, since it shows that not all articles lead to Knowledge as stated by some posters upthread. --Viennese Waltz 12:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Worked for me too! Garret Hobart -> Vice President of the United States -> public administration -> politics and then from there as per the example by Obsidian Soul.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Not all, but it seems a substanial number. In my case 3378 Susanvictoria → Asteroid belt → Solar System → Sun → Star → Plasma (physics) → Physics → Natural science → Knowledge. Also in the above case we still have the same root of Order theory as in the knowledge case. Also while philosophy may lead nearly straight back to philosophy now, comments on the talk page of Wikipedia talk:Getting to Philosophy which appear to be partially mistaken (well at least at the time of the OPs comment it seems the first link was not to Metaphysics) lead me to [28]. This suggests it may have went (I'm going by current versions from here so this may not be accurate) Philosophy → Reason → Fact → Experience → Concept which then leads back to philosphy, so at the time, you could have said all links lead to fact or reason (like you can now say they all lead to ontology). The talk page and Talk:Philosophy also suggests other historic changes, e.g. for a while Natural science resulted in a loop and evidentally so did mathematics. Nil Einne (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe that nobody has posted Wikipedia:Six degrees of Wikipedia also Small-world network. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

God's will and free will

This question has been bothering me for a long time now. Let's say, if a man became successful in life, when you ask someone why it happened, they would say it's God's will, but if he did something bad, then they would say that God gave him free will. My question is not about not blaming God (God is perfect, so we can never blame him), but why the free will clause almost always only occurs during discussions of bad things. Wouldn't it be possible that a person was able to become successful like Bill Gates or Barack Obama by using his free will well, or the person's wrongdoings were God's will because they were punishments for his sins? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It depends on which brand of religion you subscribe to, if any. You could start by looking at our article on Predestination. Alansplodge (talk) 10:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In this case, Roman Catholicism. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In some cases one may want to honour God by associating good things to him. On the other hand, when talking about one's own case, one may want to be modest and not ascribe too much success to their own character. So instead of talking about how all these good things are a result of human action, instead one talks about how God permitted them or even caused them. Conversely, one may be very wary of speaking ill of God and so avoid relating bad things to him. This is all just speculation; whether any serious psychology has been done on this question I am unsure. However, the premise of your question may be doubted too. I take it to be something like: People "almost always" limit relating free will to bad things. Is this true? Maybe not--you would have to collect a broad amount of data to give good confirmation to this theory and not just rely on anecdote. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 11:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If you do a Google search, a there are a great many articles and essays on the subject. We Anglicans tend to ignore the whole notion, but (as always) there are many strands of thought. Alansplodge (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't ask that question without questioning the omniscience of [the Abrahamic] God as well. The very same question is asked by almost everyone who eventually became agnostics or atheists.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a dichotomy - it's not a choice of either God made this happen to me or there is no god. In my limited view, I have never really believed in a god that controls who succeeds and who fails. Saying that God is omniscient, and by definition all-knowing does not mean that God does or does not exert physical control over the happenings on the planet. Even if you say that God is omnipotent, that only means that God can do anything, not that God does. A lot of people have a lot of disagreement over these subjects. Falconus^{p t c} 11:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about omniscience not omnipotence. Whether God acts or not, does not come into the equation. An omniscient God means whatever we do is already known. Before we're even born, we've already been assigned a place in heaven or hell (or the equivalents thereof in the different branches of Abrahamic religions).

When whatever "choice" you make now, has already been accounted for, do the rituals, prayers, guilt, sins, scriptures, codes, sermons, conversions, sects, good and evil, everything still matter? If such a God knows you will sin, why does he punish you for it? He knows Adam and Eve will eat the apple, so why make them in the first place? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between predetermination (these people will be saved, these people won't, and there's nothing that they can do about it) and the idea that God knows what choices one is going to make and what that person's fate will be ahead of time. In the latter situation, the person is in control of his or her destiny, it's just that God can preview the results. Also, many Christians don't fall so neatly into these two philosophies. In the Anglican church, as referenced above, it doesn't seem to be discussed much; it's not an important issue in my Episcopal church. Falconus^{p t c} 12:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As for "why", I can't answer that. Falconus^{p t c} 12:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No there isn't. The difference between the two is simply who to blame. Predetermination blames the deity, free will + omniscience blames the individual. Both do not have room for the concept of "choices". Everything was, is, and will be as God knows them to be. Anything other than that means he does not know everything. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I will politely have to disagree; the latter is all about choices. It is not about God controlling what choices people will make, it is about God knowing what choices people will make. Prior knowledge does not equal manipulation. Why does knowledge of the future determine the future, rather than the future determining knowledge of the future? To me, the latter makes more sense. To be objective, there is also the third option - there is no future, only the present and the past, so knowledge of the future cannot exist. In that case, of course, there could be no omniscient God. Falconus^{p t c} 13:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The concept of divine omniscience does not necessarily preclude human choice. See C. S. Lewis's discussion of Boethius' treatment of the question on pp. 88–89 of The Discarded Image (assuming that you can see the same Google Books "preview" that I see). Deor (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

@Falconus: Because your choice is already known. Even the act and time of choosing is already known. Even if to a human the future seems to change because of his/her choice, that choice and the seeming "branching" of futures is already known as if it had already happened or is happening.

Omniscience does not merely mean prior knowledge, it is knowledge period. An omniscient being can not be subject to the tyrannies of time, he knows that which has happened, is happening, and will happen. The future is not the "possible". The future simply is. Any choices/actions, including those done by God himself is already accounted for.

C.S. Lewis/Boethius actually says the same thing in Deor's link: "..God is eternal, not perpetual. Strictly speaking, He never foresees; He simply sees. Your 'future' is only an area, and for us a special area, of His infinite Now."

@Deor: His 'answer': "As a human spectator, by watching my present act, does not at all infringe its freedom, so I am none the less free to act as I choose in the future because God, in that future (His present) watches me acting" is not an answer. Nor does it justify saying that omniscience would therefore not preclude human choice. An "act" is not a discrete moment, neither is time separated into snippets of choices, each determining what your fate will be. For how long would such a snippet be then? If presented with a chocochip or oatmeal cookie, does the three seconds it takes for me to choose the chocochip constitute a snippet wherein an omniscient being truly would not know what my choice would be? Would it be the microseconds it takes for my fingertips to touch the cookie of my choice?

Anything like that, no matter how fleeting, constitutes a blind spot. And such blind spots of knowledge would therefore mean that God is not omniscient. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Although, I must say the concept of a future not existing is definitely a novel idea. One which could solve the paradox where it not for the fact that Abrahamic religions themselves put special value on prophets.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

When you say "If presented with a chocochip or oatmeal cookie, does the three seconds it takes for me to choose the chocochip constitute a snippet wherein an omniscient being truly would not know what my choice would be?" how are you not viewing the omniscient being as inside time rather than outside it? There's no "three-second snippet" for God; he sees the presentation of the cookies, your hesitation, and your eventual choice all as part of his "infinite Now". Deor (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly the point, because then he knows my choice, does he not? If he already knows my eventual choice, it becomes a necessity for it to be. If I choose differently than what he knows I will choose, that makes him not omniscient. If I always choose what he knows I will choose, then that makes me not have free will.

Even if his "infinite Now" is a timeless realm of all possibilities (with me choosing the chocochip cookie, the oatmeal cookie, both, or neither) then you'd come to the same conclusion - there would be no choice and no free will, as I've done all of them and none of them. And no, if you argue that perhaps my "soul" can only follow one of the possible paths, we're back to the singular reality where an omniscient being would already know which paths I would follow. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This part of the discussion is clearly going nowhere, so this will be my final comment. You're clearly not getting the point (or playing the game, if you will) by continually slipping in temporal terms—"already knows my eventual choice", "knows what I will choose", "would already know which paths I would follow". The thrust of Boethius' argument that "He never foresees; He simply sees" is that "knows what I will choose", "knows what I am choosing", and "knows what I have chosen" are all simply inadequate human expressions of the mode of knowing enjoyed by a timeless and omniscient being. The second and third of those expressions don't infringe on free human choice, and the first only seems to do so from our time-bound perspective. Deor (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Returning to the original question, let's look at each case:

• "When good things happen, are they due to the action of the individual or God/outside influence ?" The individual is usually at least partially responsible, although there are exceptions, like when an unknown relative leaves you his vast estate. On the other hand, there almost always has to be some outside influence to enable the good thing to happen. In the Bill Gates example, he needed others with good ideas that he could steal, and a government which allowed him to become rich as a result.

• "When bad things happen, are they due to the action of the individual or God/outside influence ?" Again, it's usually a mixture, although some people appear to be able to destroy their seemingly perfect lives all on their own (Nixon's Watergate self-destruction comes to mind). There are, of course, natural disasters which have nothing to do with human choices, like if you are struck by a meteor. StuRat (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You're actually conflating two distinct concepts of religious morality: outcomes and behavior. Many people who do good things achieve little to no success in life (e.g. Mother Teresa); many people who do bad things become inordinately successful (e.g. Saddam Hussein). in religious thought, outcomes are provided by God, but behavior is controlled by Man, and worldly success is not a measure that matters. What matters is what happens after you die.

Yes, it makes for some confusion over why God would want bad people to succeed in the world and good people to fail. But keep in mind that what religions are trying to do (in their ham-handed way) is get people to behave well whether those people are failing or succeeding. Otherwise we end up with a society in which the golden rule is "Do unto others before they do unto you". --Ludwigs2 20:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly: in one case it is "if a man became", in the other case it is "if he did". One shouldn't be so surprised that the explanations are going to be different.

Actually, as the post below ([29]) illustrates, it isn't going to be that different for Atheists: just change "God" to "luck", "environment", "circumstances"...

Also, it might be a good idea to take a look at the article Grace (Christianity) (and other related articles and sources) for a more "nuanced" explanation. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Your first mistake was believing that God exists, even though his existence would contradict everything we know about physics and, as shown above, would lead to logical paradoxes. Your second mistake was assuming that when people say something is "God's will" or "free will", they actually know anything about God's will. When successful people claim that their success is due to God's will, they conveniently ignore that the fortunate environment in which they grew up, their lucky decisions, and their superior genes played a much bigger role than their own choices. They ignore that a child in Africa could have become just as successful, if only he didn't die of cholera; they ignore that a thousand people in their own country could have become billionaires, if some more tax money had been spent on poorer schools; they ignore that had their competitors not waited 2 hours longer to file a patent, or not gotten into a car accident, or not missed a bus by 5 seconds, or not donated as much to charity, they would be out of business. As always in human history, religion becomes a way to justify the existing world order and cleanse guilt by blaming the victim--the poor and oppressed--for their own condition.

Your third mistake was assuming that God is perfect. In what sense is he perfect? This assumption is contradicted by the Bible itself, in which God gets angry, acts arbitrarily, and sometimes regrets his decisions. Perfect example: Noah's flood. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

<ahem> Science does not contradict the existence of God. The existence of God is simply a non-falsifiable theory, something which modern science frowns upon, but non-falsifiability is not a refutation of anything in and of itself (except in the mind of a certain class of skeptic who take Popper's outmoded ideation far too much to heart).

I understand where you're coming from, IP, I even mostly agree with you, but the real contradiction here is in your insistence that a skeptical position is right. A skeptic who isn't skeptical of his own skepticism isn't a skeptic at all; he's just an ideologue hiding behind the mantle of science. --Ludwigs2 20:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) God does not contradict physics. Science has neither proven nor disproved God. I agree with you about what you said about "When successful people..." We have spent quite a bit of time talking about that particular issue in my church. Systems of oppression, unequal opportunity, etc. Although, by the sounds of it, you didn't think that people who believe in God consider that stuff - I assure you, you are quite wrong on that count. In my church, we have devoted a lot of time to learning about and working with some of the poorest and most oppressed populations in the US; people that the middle and upper class generally never ever see unless they look for them. The prosperity gospel attitudes that you cite are representative of some very vocal Christian groups. However, I will state very sincerely that there are many, many Christians that feel that the Christian mission is to get rid of inequality, help the poor (and no, I don't mean throw money at them to feel good), reject things that contribute to the systems of oppression, spread the word about these issues, etc. The prosperity gospel is frankly opposite to what we see when we study Jesus's teachings. I completely respect that you don't believe in a God, but kindly refrain from making generic false statements about those who do. You will note that I am not telling you how you are wrong about what you believe. Also, this is not really related to the subject, so I have said what I have to say; I won't derail the conversation further. Falconus^{p t c} 20:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I implied that all religious people, or even most religious people, don't care about the poor. I was referring specifically to successful people who claim that their success was God's will, not to believers in general. As such, I think my comment is very relevant to the OP's question.

I also think, however, that you can't dismiss the vocal Christian groups that adhere to the prosperity gospel. Like it or not, they're very prominent groups that have a large following. At least in the United States, the heavily religious tend to advocate for fewer benefits for the poor, less humane treatment of criminals, treating illegal immigrants like animals, taking away LGBT rights, and advancing a foreign policy that promotes American interests by trampling on all notions of justice or morality. Atheists are left to scratch their heads and wonder why it should be the case that a religion which claims to teach love of neighbor and "turning the other cheek" should be a potent force of hatred, while their opponents tend to be less religious or non-religious. I think that if a less advanced alien race were to look at Earth to decide what to include in their own civilization, they'd see religion fomenting conflict, justifying inequalities, and (historically) justifying the divine right of kings, slavery, racism, genocide, colonialism, and feudalism, and immediately exclude it from their societies.

As for whether the existence of God contradicts physics, I agree that the existence of God in general does not. This does not apply to the Judeo-Christian God, which is falsifiable (and has been falsified), because the Bible explicitly contradicts scientific findings about the origin and development of the universe as well as historical findings about the Israelites. It also does not apply to any omniscient or omnipotent God. Chaos theory, in addition to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, means that it's impossible to predict the future any significant length of time in advance. It is impossible, for example, to predict whether a certain radioactive atom will decay after 1 second or 1 billion years. Any entity, including God, that can predict the future in this way is violating the laws of physics. It is also impossible to travel faster than the speed of light. If God is able to visit Earth, communicate with the people there, visit a civilization in the Andromeda Galaxy, and return in less than 4 million years, that explicitly and unambiguously violates the laws of physics. You might say that our knowledge of physics is incomplete, but so is our knowledge of mathematics, yet that didn't prevent Orwell from saying in 1984 that a government which can declare 2+2=5 is an example of ultimate tyranny. If that's true, religions are other examples of ultimate tyranny, for declaring "facts" that contradict the laws of physics and expecting people to believe them. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Just in the spirit of fun, you've made a foible and an error:

• Refuting the bible doesn't refute the idea of God. that's like saying you refute the existence of the internet if you break your computer.
• Chaos (in the chaos theory sense) is absolutely deterministic. it appears chaotic to us because it's sensitive to initial conditions: small differences at the start lead to big differences farther on, and we don't have have the ability to measure those small differences accurately enough. a being who was actually omniscient would be fully aware of the initial conditions and thus able to predict outcomes perfectly.
• The 'speed of light' limitation only applies to things with mass and to things that have to move from place to place. it's probably best to to visualize God as some guy scooting around from place to place in a UFO.

just sayin'… --Ludwigs2 04:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Refuting the bible refutes the Judeo-Christian God, but not God in general. How would you define the Judeo-Christian god, if not as "the god of the Bible"?

2. "Chaos", in the classical sense, is indeed absolutely deterministic. However, the essence of chaos theory is that small variations in initial conditions get exponentially magnified with time. The cause of those small variations are not deterministic--they could be the result of random wavefunction collapse, which are truly random.

3. That's 100% wrong. Photons are massless, but they're also bound by the speed of light. Any method of transferring information faster than light violates the laws of physics. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Generally claims of physics refuting the Judeo-Christian God are in relation to literal interpretations. Sure, science may contradict the idea that God created the world in 7 days and that Jesus walked on water. That is true, however many Christians don't believe that either of those literally happened either. And the image of God being debated here seems to be some dude flying around space - while an entertaining image, that's the first time I've thought of it that way since I was a young child. For me, God is not physical, but more spiritual, and exists outside of space and time (i.e. the universe). That is completely different. Why do I think that? Because a God flying around space pushing buttons just doesn't seem to work, for all the reasons mentioned here and 1000 more. Falconus^{p t c} 11:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

An obvious factor that is often overlooked is the possibility that God can see all possible outcomes of a given decision. It helps to get outside of normal human experience when theorizing about God. In fact, I think this concept was posed in a Mark Twain story, possibly The Mysterious Stranger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The outcomes and the decision aren't two different things, of which one is outside the scope of omniscience. If being omniscient means he knows the possible outcomes, doesn't it follow that he also knows what the decision is? I know all this sounds very unrelated to the original post, but it does all boil down to that question. Who to blame for the "bad" things and the "good" things. Did we choose them, or have we already made the choice?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There is this goofy theory about reverse time travel, that if you were to go back in time and do something that creates a paradox, the paradox would be resolved by the universe splitting into two parallel parts, with different outcomes. That's about as nutty an idea as I've heard. I don't know if whoever came up with that is a believer or not - but as silly as it sounds, there could be something to it: the omniscient God will have seen any and all of those "universes". So whichever action you take, you are free to do so. So the blame is on you, not on God. That's one theory, anyway. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The man who came up with that "nutty" idea - or rather the respectable if not universally accepted quantum physics version of it (which does account for time-travel paradoxes, although that is not its main thrust) was a "committed atheist" if his WP article is to be believed. Valiantis (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

How old was he when he was committed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

January 28

Black women single?

Is there any book or website that talks about why black women are single, the causes and recommendations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.218 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be the same book that talks about why women in general are single. One of the causes is that they are not interested in being married and one of the recommendations would be that this requires no advice. Here's an article for your consideration. Bielle (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know many married black women. I would guess the cause of being single would be those who aren't married. --Jayron32 05:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That explains the "cause(s)". The "recommendations" part could get trickier. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There is social science research on race-based disparities in marriage rates, so the previously glib answer are perhaps out of place. However, the OP isn't exactly articulating what exactly they're after. Shadowjams (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's an interesting article by a social scientist on why black women are single: [30]. In short, Ms. Stanley says that black women tend to marry later rather than earlier. The reason is that the war on drugs has swept millions of black men into prison, causing black women to significantly outnumber black men in colleges, so men and women are often not in the same physical, emotional, or professional spaces. Secondly, black men with a criminal record are considered less desirable mates. Thirdly, negative stereotypes of black women reduce their attractiveness to people of other races, further reducing their dating pool. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

140.180.15.97 mentioned a website about black women being single. Thanks 140. I needed that. but still i am looking for a book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.40.91 (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Interracial love

The preceding question made me very curious about interracial love. Which racial group is considered most attractive, and which is considered least attractive, according to other races? I've noticed that it's common for a Caucasian to think an Asian is cute, or vice versa, but few non-blacks consider blacks to be cute.

A related question is that, according to interracial marriage in the United States, Asian women marry white men far more often than Asian men marry white women. Is this due to racism and sexism in the Asian community? A plausible explanation is that Asian women are more submissive, meaning that they're preferable to both Asian and white men; at the same time, Asian men don't like the independence and assertiveness of white women. Another plausible explanation is that Asians consider people of other races to be less worthy, but because of sexism, it's appropriate for women to settle for a less worthy mate, but not appropriate for men to do the same. Is either explanation correct? --140.180.15.97 (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What's an Asian? HiLo48 (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that's a serious question, in colloquial usage, it refers to someone of Chinese/Japanese/Korean descent, or who looks like someone of that descent. Respondents are welcome to include Indians/Pakistanis/Pacific Islanders/Turks/whoever in the definition if that makes it more convenient. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the question annoyed me in several ways, including the use of the name Asian, which to many Americans and Australians really just means slanty eyed people. It's simplistic, and offensive to not be willing to get a little closer to someone's background. I also get annoyed with the way (some?) Americans seem to obsess over interracial marriage. Be aware of and interested in the cultural (I hate the word race) background of whoever you love, but don't make such a drama about it. The assumptions and generalisations behind the question made it pretty meaningless. HiLo48 (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

1. I don't really care what "many" Americans and Australians think. You'll note that "Asian" is the term used in our interracial marriage article, and it's also a common term used by Asians themselves to identify their ethnicity.

2. I'm not American, and I don't obsess over interracial marriage. As I said, I only asked the question after reading the preceding question.

3. Assumptions? Generalisations? I challenge you to point out a single one. All of my supposed "assumptions" and "generalizations" are in fact requests for evidence. I also question your aversion of generalizations, because I consider statistical phenomena to be very illuminating, even if not every data point is close to the mean. Also, if I'm interested in a certain subject, and somebody else has an answer, you have no right to say that the question is meaningless. I couldn't care less about Mormonism and the US presidency, but I didn't object to you asking about it earlier on this reference desk. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The concept of race is a very poorly defined one, generally based on superficial features such as facial features and skin colour, leading to very sloppy generalisations such as Asian. I also found "it's common for a Caucasian to think an Asian is cute, or vice versa, but few non-blacks consider blacks to be cute" to be unsourced generalisations. HiLo48 (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually the 'colloquial usage' varies quite significantly from country to country, see Asian and Asian people. For example, here in NZ it often includes most South Asians, South East Asians (usually including Malay and Indonesians not just Thai, Vietnamese or Filipinos) and East Asians. Possibly including Afghanis, but generally not other Central Asians or those from the Middle East. In some cases it may exclude South Asians, but this is far from universal even in colloquial usage. See also [31]. Pacific Islanders are of course not included (and this term doesn't include Māori). In the UK of course, it often refers to South Asians exclusively. In Malaysia, if the term is used it will generally include South Asians and East Asians (and of course South East Asians) and may include Central Asians or even West Asians as well. Nil Einne (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

OkTrends, an "online-dating research blog" by OkCupid, has some data on race and dating: [32], [33]. --::Slomox:: >< 10:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

race is usually only relevant to marriage in an inclusive sense (e.g. it's not about other races, but rather that there is sometimes intense pressure in a given community to marry within that community). Outside of that, stereotypes of wealth and status are far more reliable indicators of interracial marriage than race. For example, if you watch BBC entertainment you'll find they frequently portray black/white relationships - something you almost never see on US tv - and rarely if ever show relationships between asians and caucasians. Britain doesn't have the negative stereotypes of blacks that are prevalent in the US, or the 'exotic' stereotype that many americans associate with women from Asian cultures. --Ludwigs2 18:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ark of the Covenant makes you implode? Can't the suicidal test this?

So the AotC is stored in some orthodox church in Ethiopia. Legend says (or perhaps some verse in the Bible says, but I don't know which verse) that anyone who even LOOKS at the Ark, shall implode, unless it's the monk who is entrusted in it.

I watched a news vid recently that the church holding the Ark was needing renovations to the roof or else rain would leak through and contaminate the ark, hence the Ark needed to be moved. Then they mentioned this legend about one's body imploding.

Would any biological science buffs explain how looking at an artifact would cause an implosion? AFAIK, it is just not scientifically plausible.

Moreover, there are wealthy suicidal individuals in various places worldwide. If I was Kurt, I could have just boarded a flight to Ethiopia to look at the Ark. If the Monk (and his cohorts?) wouldn't have let me in, I would have hired guards to shove them out of the way so that I'd get in and see it anyhow.

Then Kurt would have been one of the most legendary rock stars in history (more so than he already was) because he would have disproved or proved the legend of the Ark's effects.

So why can't there be anybody who is brazen enough to test such lethal legends as these? --70.179.174.101 (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that you'll find a likely explanation for how looking at something will make you implode. Perhaps kill you, but not make you implode without a lot of other strange happenings. I could be mistaken, but I thought that in the Bible it had to do with either touching it or opening it, not looking at it, and I don't remember it being an implosion. It's not something that I looked at too closely. In any case, that, as with the Egyptian Pyramid curses, is a legend until proven otherwise. The ark may have well existed (while it's possible, I would be somewhat surprised if it still does), but I think it likely that the consequences for mishandling it have been a little bit exaggerated. Of course, if you take the Bible literally that's a whole different affair. Maybe it was a law that if you were to touch it you would be put to death [by other people] and that morphed into what is written today and in legend. As for suicidal people, I have no comment. Falconus^{p t c} 12:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) The basis of magic, myth, miracle, and legend is that things don't have to be scientifically possible in order to be 'possible' or to 'happen' in terms of the legend. This is a significant difference between say religious belief and science. FWIW there is little to no solid evidence that the Ark even exists in this location, or frankly that it (still) exists at all. Re your final point, I am certainly not suicidal, but I'd be more than happy to 'test' this legend as I'm sure would many others, with some preliminary scientific tests implemented beforehand, for example that they weren't concealing a highly radioactive or some other toxic substance in their box, but in terms of imploding per your legend I'd not be concerned at all. I'm willing to bet Mythbusters could make a good episode out of it. It's not so much a case of there not being anybody brazen enough to test these legends, as it would be of the church holding the 'artifacts' being unwilling to have it tested, as by having it disproven it could lead to some loss of face and more importantly loss of revenue (Ark of the Covenant#Ethiopia even discusses such an incident in 2009). Just goes to show you though, don't believe everything you see on the news. --jjron (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Numbers 4:20 just says that the person viewing will die not implode. That was what happened in Raiders of the Lost Ark wasn't it? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The Ark isn't necessarily in Ethiopia. The Bible is rather silent on what the ultimate fate of the Ark is, and the "It's in some old church in Ethiopia" thing isn't a well respected theory. Its main proponent is The Sign and the Seal author Graham Hancock, the same guy who thinks An alien civilization based in Antarctica taught Egyptians how to build pyramids and stuff like that. --Jayron32 13:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit unfair. It's not just one crank author; it's been a central tenet of the Ethiopian Church for centuries that the Ark is in the Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion in Axum. 78.146.193.122 (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It may be a particularly large chunk of Uranium. :D -- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Why did pre-Columbian civilisations arise in such odd places?

In Europe, Africa and Asia, the major civilisations all arose and were centred around fertile lands with a mild climate (the Nile, the fertile crescent of the Middle East, the Chinese coast, the moist regions of the Indian subcontinent, the Mediterranean and so on). However, in the Americas the most advanced historical cultures in terms of technology and social organisation were the Incas (barren mountains), the Mayans (malarial swamps and virtually un-cultivatable jungle), the Aztecs (baking-hot desert) and the Iroquois (rugged hills, and buried under 10 feet of snow for a large chunk of the year). Meanwhile, the native tribes of places like California, the Argentine pampas and the Great Plains, never advanced far beyond the mud-huts-and-spears stage prior to European arrival. Why is this? Somewhere like the Los Angeles basin, with excellent farmland and fishing, no harsh winters and mountains providing a natural defensive perimeter, would seem like the ideal place for an advanced culture to take off. If harsh climates were the trigger for city-building in the Americas (because they forced people to cooperate in cities rather than just live off the land as hunter-gatherers), why did the same thing not happen in the rest of the world? 78.146.193.122 (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

One word - agriculture.

Also you seem to have certain misconceptions about the Central and South American civilizations. Incan, Mayan, and Aztec civilizations at the height of their glory were in anything but wastelands. The Inca civilization for example, spanned a great deal of territory in South America with an advanced network of highways connecting various cities.

Aztecs did not develop in deserts either. Both Aztec and Mayan civilizations were in Central America, with the Mayans being more ancient than Aztecs. The stone structures of the Mayan and Aztec city-states were not in the middle of jungles as they are now. Most were in the banks of bodies of water, surrounded by smaller perishable settlements and vast cultivated fields. The jungle surrounding them today is simply the result of abandonment. The Aztec city of Mexico itself was once a virtually impregnable city-state built in the middle of a lake with satellite cities and fields surrounding it. Compare the ruins of Angkor Wat or Borobudur for example.

North American peoples on the other hand, never became city builders due to the simple fact that there were plenty of food without resorting to agriculture. Food that migrated and thus necessitated a nomadic lifestyle - animals. The most important of which is the American bison which once roamed N. America in vast herds. The rest were hunter-gatherers or subsisted on fishing, including the Chumash people of the Los Angeles area.

The few that discovered agriculture out of necessity (corn mostly) developed small civilizations that were nevertheless limited by the harshness of their environments and constant warfare with neighboring nomadic peoples. Examples of which are the Ancient Pueblo Peoples, the most famous being the Anasazi.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, the climate in the fertile crescent can not in any way be considered mild. It consists mostly of barren desert, so out of necessity it was centred naturally around the only fertile areas, which was the narrow riverbanks that provided the water and natural fertilisation needed for agriculture. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There were plenty of city-builders and farmers amongst native North Americans. Many of them were even still in place by the time the Europeans arrived. Charles Mann's 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus and its sequel describe this quite well. The reason that Jamestown colony, for example, was positioned in such lousy land is because the rest of it was densely occupied by large numbers of the Powhatan Confederacy, who farmed extensively as well as hunted and fished. One of the reasons that Europeans considered them so uncivilized was because their farms were not the monocultured, fenced-in areas that were common to Europe. (It's amazing how important fences are to European peoples, in claiming something as civilized. It's a side-effect of having grazing animals, and nothing more. Because the North Americans did not have grazing animals, they had no fences, and the Europeans did not recognize their farms as such.) --Mr.98 (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh true. I guess I'm guilty of defining "civilization" in the more popular manner of those that leave behind lasting structures. The sheer number of Native Americans killed by the introduced diseases might have even decimated some of them before Europeans even made contact. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Those swamps were not malarial before 1492 — malaria came from Europeans (via Africa). The Incan mountains were anything but barren — they were the site of the most immense irrigation systems in the world at that point, farming dozens of varieties of potato, which is practically a miracle food (it gives you 4X the calories per weight that a cereal grain does, and also gives you a huge amount of vitamins). (Keep in mind that your definition of "civilization" is in part "an agricultural production system that allows for distribution of labor" — the connection with agriculture is anything but incidental.) Anyway in general I think you have a somewhat confused and definitely out of date picture of this history. The Mann books are really quite excellent at describing what is now known about these peoples and civilizations. The initial impression of Europeans (that these areas were sparsely inhabited by pastoral people) have been shown to be exactly wrong by archaeology. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to boil down what everyone else has said, large civilizations require one thing first and foremost: water. large numbers of people consume large quantities of water via drinking, irrigation, and maintaining herds, and boats/rafts are the only form of bulk transportation before the invention of the wheel, and the most efficient form of bulk transportation before the railroad. large cities in the early world could only by built on more-or-less well-behaved rivers, on lakes, where there where easily accessible aquifers or springs. large cities died when those sources dried up. I'd even argue that early political organization was mostly developed to manage water resources (collective construction and maintenance of large irrigation system, or as in early Egypt collective organization of farming around cycles of flooding. note that one of Moses' first acts after taking the tribes out of Egypt was to draw water from a rock in the desert (assumedly meaning he brought them to a natural spring); if he hadn't, the tribes would have been forced to break up into small far-ranging groups looking for water in small quantities, and they would have been absorbed into other, more settled cultures.

check out water politics. --Ludwigs2 18:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Rivers of the British Isles Map

I'm looking for a image -- similar to [34] -- prominently showing the rivers of the British Isles, for free personal use. Thanks. --90.220.162.175 (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Would this be what you have in mind? 78.146.193.122 (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Blue-red-green flag

Where to use the horizontal stripes blue-red-green flag with a gold rim and white dragon in the center? Странник27 (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't find any flag similar to what you describe - there are countries with horizontal blue-green-red flags, but none have dragons on. Did either of those links help any? --Saalstin (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It could be a variant on the Flag of Azerbaijan, similar to the Presidential Standard or the Army Flag but if it is, it's not a widely recognised one. In the US, a gold edge on a flag indicates it's a ceremonial flag, but doesn't have any real meaning (despite what conspiracy theorists claim), so it may not be a vital part of the design of this flag either. Smurrayinchester 16:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Gog and Magog

HELLO AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND TIME PEACE.IN YOUR EXPLANATION OF GOG AND MAGOG,IT WAS SAID IN A PASSAGE FOLLOWING THE QURANIC VIEW ON THE TOPIC,THAT A VERSION OF ANOTHER HISTORICLE ACCOUNT OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT MENTIONED IN YOUR ARTICLE ACTED AS AND I QUOTE"THE BASIS FOR THE QURANIC TALE OF DHUL QARNAYN.I HUMBLY REQUEST THE PROOF AND BASIS FOR THAT TALE,ESCUSE ME THAT CLAIM.THANKS AGAIN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.113.70 (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't use all capital letters in your posts. It is hard to read, and is regarded as shouting on the Internet. HiLo48 (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)