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

June 11

Succession plan

Is Succession plan a panacea for management crisis?

Yes. --Dweller (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No. --Sean 13:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Livewireo (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

All of the above. --Tango (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Mu. -- kainaw™ 21:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyone above is wrong. However, this sounds like a homework question. Another way of phrasing this odd question is, "If there is a management crisis of any sort, would a succession plan be sure to fix it?" I think you can probably step through the logic needed to come to a good answer. Tempshill (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)In all seriousness though, I hate to bite, what kind of answer were you expecting? I'm not even sure how a "succession plan" is a panacea for anything or what it could do to specifically resolve any issue. Having plans certianly will guide you out of a crisis, but I wouldnt call it a panacea. Also, Tempshill is right, this sounds like a essay question. Livewireo (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Successing planning and crisis management are two entirely different concepts, and shouldn't even be on the same page. Succesion planning is ensuring that key people in an organization are not indispensible. The main scenario is, "If Joe gets hit by a bus tomorrow, how do we cope?" Management crisis, on the other hand, involves quickly identifying the key issues, ensuring personnel / public safety (or, reducing financial loss, saving the reputation), managing public relations and (probably several left out) cleaning up the mess afterwards. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

How big is the world energy market?

How big is the world energy market? Both in terms of sales and profits. To my surpprise I can't find the answer on Wikipedia.
Of course, I can make an educated guess. I know the total world energy consumption is 15 TW and I believe 1 kWh of electricity costs about 20 eurocent. So at that price, one hour of world energy would cost 0.2 * 15 giga-euro and one year would then cost 3 * 24 * 365 = 30 trillion euro. (That's about 5000 euro per person per year, which sounds about right for rich countries, but not the poor ones, which form the majority.) So that's the sales. Assuming profits are around 3%, that would mean about 1 trillion euro profits per year. However, the Royal Dutch Shell article says they make a profit of about 20 billion euro per year. That's 2%, which seems a bit low.
But that's just very rough guesswork. Does anyone know a good source? DirkvdM (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The 15 TW, does that include people burning wood that they collect? That would be nearly free for the user aside from the labor input. Also, where I live in the US, 1 KW is only 9 cents US (6-7 EUc) so that would shrink the market as well. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Getting an exact number for this will be impossible, since so much of the world's energy (specifically oil and gas) is produced by national oil companies that in many cases (like Saudi Aramco, the biggest) do not report their earnings like public corporations. For oil and gas specifically, we can perhaps extrapolate from ExxonMobil earnings: the article claims they produce 3% of the world's oil (and, since it's worded as BOE, apparently gas as well). Their revenues were $477 billion last year and their profits were $45 billion. So presumably, the entire oil and gas industry's revenues would be on the order of $16 trillion and profits would be on the order of $1.5 trillion in the last year. The profits calculation assumes that Exxon has industry average profitability, which isn't the case, in fact for much of the world it may not even be comparable since often oil is not sold on "the open market" in countries with a lot of oil but rather discounted/subsidized for their consumers. Also note that last year had record high oil prices for much of it. It's also unclear if Exxon is 3% of the gas market and oil market. The gas industry is much more regionalised than oil since transporting it across oceans is much more difficult, this will also likely throw off the calculations. Another way to get a rough estimate would be to look up oil production last year as well as average oil price and multiply the two. That will give you the revenues expected if it were all sold on the open market, which again, it isn't. Electricity is a whole other kettle of fish - big government utilities dominate much of the world's generation and cost of generation varies hugely from region to region. Your calculations may be appropriate but I don't really know. They may be further complicated by the huge capital costs involved in many power projects. Hydro dams, for instance, are relatively cheap to operate year to year, but cost billions to build. However, different forms of energy are available at very different costs and can't really be compared as you did above. Electrical power generated by a coal power plant is not worth the same per kw-hr as the chemical energy contained in a tank of gasoline (I believe the gasoline is still much cheaper, kw-hr for kw-hr). Shell makes the vast majority of its revenues off of oil, not electricity, so at a guess I'd say your $.20 per kw-hr is not accurate for it or other oil companies. TastyCakes (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Slightly OT, but might help with a guesstimate: Primary energy consumption in 2008 was 11,294.9 million tonnes oil equivalent. Electricity generation (not the same as consumption) was 20,201.8 terawatt-hours. http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2008/STAGING/local_assets/2009_downloads/statistical_review_of_world_energy_full_report_2009.xls#'Primary Energy - Consumption'!A1. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Airline pilots

I read somewhere that airline pilots actually only manually control the plane for a few minutes in every flight, the rest being done by autopilot. My question is, what do they actually do during the rest of the flight, particularly long-haul flights? Read a book? Play I spy? Sleep? It must be a really boring, but well-paid, job. 84.13.53.223 (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget playing cards. Vranak (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

They do have some jobs to do, they remain in radio contact with HQ, they ask for permission to enter every country's airspace they pass through and they monitor everything, making sure nothing is happening that shouldn't. Other than that, I assume they chat, take a good book and take turns sleeping. Prokhorovka (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In the olden days before 9/11 when they left the cockpit door open, you could often seem them reading a newspaper. APL (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not even really all that well paid. You have to pay for your education and qualification flights yourself, which in the UK is at least £50,000 (sometimes you can persuade an airline to sponsor you for some of that, but that's getting rare). The industry has moved heavily toward budget airlines which don't pay well; getting into long-haul on flag carriers needs a decade of experience and often good contacts (it's still greatly an old-school-tie / ex-military shop). The money isn't bad; it probably scales favourably to engineering or accountancy, but lags medicine or law, and because of the medical requirements you have a pretty high chance of being forced to take early retirement. Hopper Mine (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth [1], here is up-to-date American salary information. As an example, American Airlines will give $35-$199 per hour depending on plane and seniority, with 64 hours per month guaranteed; that's $26880 - $152832 per year for the minimum hours; if they do more hours they will earn more. Regional airlines (where most pilots start out) pay less, a few airlines pay more. More information here[2][3]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltelauridsbrigge (talk • contribs) 16:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that those are, I believe, flight hours. Actual "hours at work" will be higher, especially for pilots flying shorter routes. -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, pilots are legally (imposed by the regulators and unions) forced to fly no more than a maximum number of hours each year, thus capping earnings. Prokhorovka (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If they only spend a few minutes per flight in control, and if modern autopilots can both take-off and land, is the manual control bit just taxiing to and from the run-way? 78.146.54.88 (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am under the impression that while the autopilot can land the plane, usually the pilot prefers to do that bit. I am not seven sure the autopilot can get the plane into the air, so the pilot usually does both of those. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm told that many pilots spend most of the flight using their laptops. Tempshill (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because the autopilot is turned on doesn't mean the pilot doesn't have work to do. While a pilot may not actually have a hand on the stick, they are doing a lot of work and paying very close attention during the takeoff, landing, climb and descent phases of the flight, and at plenty of other times too. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Except for possibly overseas flights, the pilot is in pretty regular contact with various traffic control facilities, being handed off from one to the next. Dismas|^(talk) 13:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Depending on what equipment the airplane has on board and how well the airport is equipped, the plane can take off and land automatically. However, for less-well equipped airports, or in case of inclement weather, the pilot may choose to do it him/herself. During cruise, the autopilot does most of the flying, but the pilot is there to check everything is working properly, and to communicate with air traffic control. — QuantumEleven 09:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't it illegal to sell concert tickets at more than face value?

I'm getting seriously irritated by people buying up tickets for concerts they have no intention of attending then listing them for sale on Ebay for X times face value. Why isn't it illegal for re-sell a ticket for more than face value? This would allow more genuine fans to buy tickets at uninflated prices, destroy the ticket touts overnight (who are seriously unpleasant people - I have personal experience) and not hurt genuine resale of tickets due to unforseen circumstances (illness, double booking) but would stop people gouging fans for profit. Why isn't there legislation? Exxolon (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It is illegal in some places; see ticket scalping. In places where it's legal I presume it's because the default situation for any property is that you can buy and sell it, and those jurisdictions have not seen fit to give tickets a special status. Nobody is forced to attend an event, so I don't see how the scalpers can "gouge" people for more than the actual value (not face value) of the ticket. --Sean 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Free market enthusiasts would be one group that would denounce such legislation. The band, venue, ticket agency, and scalpers are all out to make money in this situation. In a society with a free market, as a general rule, people and companies are not restrained from maximizing their profit. If the band has chosen to charge lower ticket prices than the market will pay, that is their choice; but as Sean said above, the actual value of the ticket will differ, and so some other party in the chain will be able to increase their profit. Rather than legislation, the band should somehow be incentivized to add extra dates to their stay in town. Tempshill (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Such legislation (which on the face of it does seem tempting, as it's difficult to see what value-add the touts provide) may have drawbacks (it's very difficult to draft effective legislation that doesn't also stop beneficial behaviour). Such laws risk inhibiting a free market, as Tempshill says, which may have unforseen consequences. Objections include:

• It erodes the concept of ownership of property. If I own a car or a cd or a house I can sell it to someone for however much I like, so long as they agree to pay. Even if it's unique - if I own a Vermeer I can't I sell it for a huge amount of money, even though there are only a handful in existence?
• It erodes the concept that parties in a contract are responsible for negotiating the contract terms and ensuring they're satisfied with the terms before committing to it (so long as goods are advertised correctly). Concert tickets are not a necessity; no-one needs to go to a concert (it's not like buying milk or bread), so no-one is forced to deal with the touts. If you don't want to pay $500 for a Celine Dion concert, then don't.
• It allows the concert promoter and his agents a monopoly, and allows them to stifle value-add 3rd party services. Say, for example, that I ran a small company that provides full-service corporate entertainment packages. If you wanted to impress some clients and host a Calcutta Cup event, we'd pick your clients up at the airport in a limo, wine and dine them at Claridges, provide rugby shirts with your company logo for each, then drive everyone to Twickenham where they get nice seats together, then more dining, engraved corporate gifts, spearmint rhino, and then limo back to gatwick, all for £800/head. To do that I'd need to have someone from my office go down and buy tickets, and I have to hold the tickets in the hope that I'll be able to sell the event to some corporate clients. An anti-ticket-tout law would outlaw this business too; that means if you wanted to buy corporate entertainment that included the Rugby you'd have to buy from the Rugby people themselves (and take an expensive box package) - they have no competition, so they can charge what they want. And, as a big supplier, they won't tailor the package to meet your individual needs - it's take it or leave it.
• The way tickets are sold discriminates in favour of those who have the time and the health to sit in days long queues. If the Katherine Jenkins concert is very popular, it is essentially impossible for an elderly person to brave the queues, so they're precluded from going.

Of course you can construct a law that takes the above cases into account, but it'll be a complex beast that's difficult for the honest to follow and full of loopholes for the unscrupulous. Good law is hard to write, and frankly I think lawmakers often think "it's only concert tickets, why waste our time with something we don't think that important".

Note, incidentally, that in the UK touting (and really any reselling) of tickets for professional football games is illegal (recently they added internet sales to that); this was passed to prevent co-mingling of fans from opposing teams, who are strictly segregated to prevent violence. Hopper Mine (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I too find this frustrating, but it is easy to ban ticket resale... Every ticket is associated with some ID - the credit card used to buy or a recognised ID (passport, drivers license, national identity card, etc.) - and that same ID must be presented to enter the venue. The only way the ID can be changed is by the venue or its authorised ticket agent(s). The only difficulties I can see is group ticketing, gifts, and the fact that venues might have to consider offering refunds on unwanted tickets (see my previous question on the subject) but I'm pretty sure something could be worked out. It is not major corporations who are running a ticket scapling business so I think various "corporate function" providers could have exemption so long as their clients enter the venue together. The same could apply to group tickets. As for gifts, the ticket buyer might have to apply to the venue to change the ID, or the name of the gift recipient could be added to the ID record associated, or ... Astronaut (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the objections to this proposal are technical; I think they are philosophical and ethical objections. Tempshill (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Are most kids in China taught English?

Question as above. Vranak (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Our article says that in about the third grade a foreign language is introduced to all children, and it is normally English. Since China has primary school enrolment at over 90%, it is safe to assume the most kids are, if by no means all. Prokhorovka (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The quality and quantity of English education varies greatly between regions, and even between schools in the same city. Generally, in urban areas on the east coast (which uses the "Developed Coastal Region" curriculum), English is introduced in first grade, then taught more systematically from the third grade, and is a compulsory subject through high school. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

But, every kid over the age of 5 yrs knows how to scream "Hello!" to at foreigners. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Vranak (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

June 12

Can anyone recognize these three philosophers?

The following picture appears in Japanese Wikipedia's Portal:Philosophy: http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Portal_Tetsugaku.JPG. I am wondering about the identity of three of the people depicted in it. The ones that I have recognized are: Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, (Marx), Nietzsche, ???, Russel, Nishida Kitarō, ???, ???, Foucault, Derrida. Who are the rest of them? (I did ask the editor who created the picture this question but I never received an answer, so I decided to ask here.) --Omnipaedista (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

THe one to the right of Hegel is Karl Marx (this exact pic is in our article). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Third from the right on the bottom is grainy and hard to see, but it may be Claude Lévi-Strauss. Compare to this google image search: [4] --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Funny.. I didn't recognize Lévi-Strauss even though I had watched an (old) 1-hour TV interview of him a week ago. This leaves two of them unidentified. (In my original post, I forgot to include Marx but he is not one of the three =)). --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the one between Nishida and Lévi-Strauss is Emmanuel Levinas. The moustached one next to Nietzsche looks familiar, but I can't place him. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Second row, second from left: could it be a young Bertrand Russell? 4th from left, Karl Popper? Second from right is Michel Foucault. End right, Jacques Derrida. 3rd from right could be Mortimer Adler, but could also be Gilbert Ryle. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, ???, Russel, Nishida, Levinas, Lévi-Strauss, Foucault, Derrida. Only one left: "the moustached one next to Nietzsche". (He's gotta be either German or French; none of the Anglophones mentioned so far looks like him.) --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the moustached gentleman is in fact from the anglosphere: It is John Dewey, though viewed from a low angle and slightly squashed to fit in the collage, making his face look rounder. Here is the original portrait. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Weird. I didn't recognize it as Dewey, though I have read his works more than anyone else on the list (as a teacher myself, I find his work to be eminently applicable). I guess this one is of him as a younger Dewey, since most of the pics I have seen of him is as an older man. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition, he's usually shown wearing spectacles, even in his younger years. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And I was wondering where were the American Pragmatists in this "timeline". So, in short, the answer to my query is Dewey, Levinas, Lévi-Strauss. Last (witty) remark: despite the fact that superficially this was an unessential quizz, I believe that effectively it made us all refresh our knowledge of the history of philosophy and put some faces to some names or, in this case, to some inherently "impersonal" philosophical ideas. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I had similar thoughts while searching, Omni, and I always enjoy this type of sleuthing at the reference desks. Only late in the game did I realize it was a strictly chronological timeline by date of birth, meaning the mysterious moustache man had to be born between 1844 and 1872. I did find a similar picture here, albeit with glasses, but I also hovered around Julien Benda for a while (see this picture, for example :-). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

JK Rowling's sources of income

JK Rowling's wiki biography mentions the rather subtantial fortune she has earned from her writings. Is it known what proportion of this came from actual book sales, and how much from movies? I'm particularly wondering the movie amount. Thanks. 67.122.209.126 (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I googled on "JK Rowling" and "movie earnings" and found the same question asked in another forum, and there was an answer citing a Times article from last October. The answer is no, her movie earnings have not been disclosed. --Anonymous, 05:30 UTC, June 12, 2009.

You would also need to allow for the amount she has made through merchandising, which I suspect is rather a lot, given the pervasion of the Harry Potter brand. Gwinva (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This People Magazine article from 2003 gives the rather precise claim that US$238.7 million of her US$445.5 million came from book sales. Her wealth had more than doubled since then as of the Forbes 2007 list. Hard to say if the ratio has changed since then. She may have been able to get higher royalty rates from the later movies. Merchandise revenue has presumably decreased a lot (I think it peaked around 2001 when the stores were saturated with Harry). Tempshill (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Verifying a Goethe quote

There' a quote attributed to Goethe floating about there, but never seems fixed to one of his writings or another. Trying to figure out if it's really a Goethe quote, and where to source it from, has been driving me quietly crazy for quite some time. "If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts; and if any would write in a noble style, let him first possess a noble soul." Can any of you eminent scholars help me out here? Failing that, I'll take some bum with a half-remembered title to a magazine article. In Valandic. -Toptomcat (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Im ganzen ist der Stil eines Schriftstellers ein treuer Abdruck seines Innern: will jemand einen klaren Stil schreiben, so sei es ihm zuvor klar in seiner Seele; und will jemand einen grossartigen Stil schreiben, so habe er einen grossartigen Charakter." It is from "Gespräche mit Goethe in den letzten Jahren seines Lebens, 1827. Found it in Google Books.--Rallette (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazing, there are quotes floating about the Internet that are real.--Mr.K. (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, they're all real. Just misattributed in many cases; sometimes deliberately, sometimes in good faith. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. -Toptomcat (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

June 13

Where did the United States take their missles after pulling them out of Turkey?

I had originally figured they were relegated back to our country, but a comment on a video on Youtube.com claimed that they moved the missiles to Romania. Youtube is a dubious source for information, but the commenter seemed to know what he was talking about; hence, my referring of this question to you:

Did the United States, following the Cuban Missile Crisis, move their missiles in Turkey to Romania? If not, where did those missiles go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.89.101 (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where the US moved the missiles to, but it certainly wasn't Romania, which was very much enemy territory at the time. Algebraist 00:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Operation Pot Pie, the removal of Jupiters from Italy and Turkey began 1 April and was comepleted by the 23rd. Initial plans were to recycle the missiles for use in other programs, but NASA and the USAF were not interested in the hardware. The missile bodies were destroyed on site, warheads, guidance packages, and launching equipment worth $14 million were returned to the U.S. Nash, P. (1997). The Other Missiles of October: Eisenhower, Kennedy, and the Jupiters, 1957-1963. pp. 164-5. OCLC 44961322.—eric 02:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Harkavy edition of Holy Scriptures

Hello, I read that Alexander Harkavy translated an English version of the Tanakh, but it seems that it is no longer published. I was wondering whe it was first published and when it was last published? Thanks for the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.131.33 (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Also, does the Hebrew publishing company who published this translation still exist - and is this still under copyright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.131.33 (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Four-part response:

1) It seems that Alexander Harkavy created a version of the Tanakh by editing another version. This page says "He could not undertake to translate anew the whole of the Tanach (because even 25 years later the Jewish Publishing Society was forced to engage a whole assembly of learned specialists to compose a new English version of the Tanach for Jews, based on the King James version). But there was a need at that time for a kosher Tanach in English. Harkavy, by removing the rejects from the modern “Revised Version”, obtained an acceptable kosher translation for Jews."

2) Confirmation that Hebrew Publishing Company published Harkavy's Tanakh found here, with a publishing date of 1916.

3) A search for "Hebrew Publishing Company New York" returns two hits for the company with slightly different addresses P.O. Box, Street address but both with the same phone number (518-392-3322).

4) Our article says that Harkavy died in 1939. That means his works are still copyrighted. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ilinka Crvenkovska

Labyrinth#Modern_takes_on_Greek_labyrinth mentions a play about Theseus and the Minotaur by (Macedonian) author Ilinka Crvenkovska. We would like to flesh this out a bit with a reference or two (including, say, the title of the play), but Google leads to essentially no information except echoes copied from WP. Anybody here an expert on modern Macedonian literature? Elphion (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Reign Dates

Does any body know the exact date and month when Kingdom of Denmark handed over the Count of Oldenburg to Russia in exchange for the land of Holstein-Gottorp and also the exact date and month when Frederick Augustus I of Oldenburg became count (also in 1773). Also when he became duke. So thats three dates, thanks.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

On the last point, amny sources say he became Duke in 1777, which actually contradicts the Rulers of Oldenburg page (1774) and one other site (1775). On one of the other points, here might be helpful, which says this: Duke Paul of Holstein-Gottorp bequeathed his state to Holstein-Segeburg. Denmark then united Holstein-Segebuwrg and Holstein-Gottorp as the Duchy of Schleswig-Holstein and granted Oldenburg to Paul. and dates it to 1773.7.1. . Surely he became Count when it was handed over (or am I missing something?) since he was the first Count under the new control, we're only taking exchanging ruling families? Sorry I can't be of more help, but every account on the web uses different accounts, names, etc. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is what I can gather from these two sources [5][6]. Use with a lot of caution since I basically can't read German; hopefully it can serve as a point of departure:

The patent of Paul's transfer of the title of count, effective 30 July 1773, was announced in Oldenburg 14 December 1773, and the official transfer occurred on the same date. Imperial confirmation occurred 17 December 1774 [sic]. Elevation of the countship to a duchy by imperial diploma 29 December 1774. Official enfeoffment (Belehnung) by Emperor 22 March 1777. Patent issued by Emperor 1 July 1777. Official announcement in Oldenburg on 18 July 1777.--Cam (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

On the transfer of Holstein to Denmark, see this page: Catherine, acting for her son Paul, agreed to the exchange in a provisional treaty 22 April 1767 (New Style). It was agreed this arrangement would not be valid until Paul came of age and granted his adhesion to it. He gave his adhesion officially in a treaty of 1 June 1773 (N.S.). --Cam (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Rose of Lima as the patron saint of India

Why is Rose of Lima the patron saint of India ? She seems to have nothing to do with Philippines either but I suppose there could be some Spanish connection. Tintin 10:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you read The Life of Saint Rose of Lima, images of her were sent to India and prominently featured in several healing miracles there. I'm not sure, but I believe those factored into her canonization. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The sun never sets...

"The sun never sets on the British Empire". Is this quote still true given File:Location of the BOTs.png? I suspect that it is but don't know how to verify it.-- SGBailey (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(((BTW, What section should "Geography" questions like this be put in? It isn't clear from WP:RD, so I chose Hum rather than Misc.))) -- SGBailey (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In a very real sense, it ceased to be true when the British Empire ceased to be. The British overseas territories are territories of the United Kingdom, not part of the British Empire any more. This is not just a semantic point. It's probably true that "the sun never sets on the Commonwealth of Nations", but that doesn't have the same ring, and it's not the same thing as the old British Empire, although there's quite some overlap. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

From that map, I would say it was valid, only in the sense that there is always going to be somewhere in the 'Empire' which has the sun shining on it (of course, as you know, this is what the quote means). But I would agree with Jack, that the Empire is not called an Empire now, it's called British Overseas Territories, and doesn't sound quite as grandiose, and nor does 'the sun never sets on the British Overseas Territories'. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is this not just a semantic point? Algebraist 12:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Because the British Overseas Territories are not the British Empire? Because there is no British Empire? Because all the subsidiary ideas which the phrase was meant to conjure up are not true, and do not apply? 80.41.126.158 (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the British Overseas Territories don't operate anything like the old Empire. Prokhorovka (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the original sentence is by Carlos V (En mis dominios jamás se pone el sol)... --pma (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with anything, but when I was a kid I was told this quote referred to the France under Louis XIV, and that was the reason that people called him "The Sun King". Turns out he was just really vain (and, you know, he was king for 72 years, which it has to be said is a pretty decent term. Respect, dude). 83.250.236.75 (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect to whoever told you that version of the origin of the expression, but I very strongly suspect it's ex post factum armchair-philosopher folk-etymological rubbish. Have a look at this. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that now, but talking about the Divine Right of Kings is a lot less fun story to tell to a nine-year-old. BTW, that's a spectacular wig he's wearing. That cat was stylish. 83.250.236.75 (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside the philosophy, and assuming that the British Overseas Territories can be considered the last remnants of the Empire, then it's still pretty certain that there is always some part of thoses territories in daylight. You don't have to be large to achieve this, just very geographically diverse, and that certainly still applies. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a strange question regarding US Presidential succession...

I was just watching a few episodes of the West Wing on DVD. It was the episodes at the end of season four and season five, when Zoey Bartlet was kidnapped and the President invoked the 25th amendment and temporarily transferred power to the (Republican) Speaker of the House (his Vice President having recently resigned). When this happens, it is pointed out that the Speaker has to resign from Congress because of separation of powers issues (you can't work for two branches of government at the same time). But this brings up a question: if he resigns as Speaker of the House first, he's no longer in the line of succession, he's just a private citizen again. So how can he assume the office? And since he can't assume office while being the Speaker at the same time, why is he in the line of succession at all?

I suppose that should this situation ever arose, people would just ignore that little wrinkle, but it brings up a larger issue. The President is part of the executive branch, the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate (the next person in line) are both part of the legislative branch. It seems to me that if you adhered to a strict principle of separation of powers, they shouldn't be anywhere near the presidential line of succession. It's probably just me, but isn't that really strange? 83.250.236.75 (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is quite similar to this question from a couple of weeks ago. The 25th Amendment does not itself cover the situation where the president is incapacitated and there is no vice president. That situation falls under the Presidential Succession Act. The answer to 83's first question is that the act says: "the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President."

See the earlier thread for other relevant points. --Anonymous, 21:18 UTC, June 13, 2009.

Ahh, thank you, didn't realize that it had been asked before. It's comforting to know that the people who wrote the law specifically included that little bit (it reminds me of quote from another episode of the series, when the President is shot and no one is quite sure who's in charge while he's under general anaesthesia, and Toby sarcastically says "Good, because this is an area of federal law where you'd want as much ambiguity as possible"). Still, it kinda bothers me that there are people from the legislative branch in the line of succession, but I guess that those people are the highest elected representatives of the United States aside from the President and the Vice President, so it does make some sort of sense, separation of powers be damned. 83.250.236.75 (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(And yes, in case anyone wondered, I have been on kind-of a West Wing marathon the last week) 83.250.236.75 (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

June 14

United States draft exceptions

Hypothetically speaking, if you were gay and the federal government initiated a draft, would you be required to go to war? Just something I'm wondering (conversation came up with a friend). ^blurred_peace ☮ 00:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as the don't ask, don't tell policy is in effect, if you were openly gay, you couldn't serve in the armed forces of the United States. If you kept your orientation a secret from everyone, you could. Of course, if there was a draft, it could well be that they would repeal or change that policy at the same time just to make sure people couldn't get out of the military simply by clearing their throat and saying loudly, "I'm a homosexual" -- because right now, that's pretty much all it takes to get discharged. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

When the draft was being used for 'Nam', the US Army needed everyone it could get. As a result even people who were caught committing sodomy could stay in the forces as long as they could 'convince' an army tribunal it was a one off offence (something the tribunal worked hard to convince themselves of). This led to the so called 'Queen for a Day' rule, which is discussed in the history section of the article linked to above. Prokhorovka (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm speculating, but these days, the US would only initiate a draft if it were in a broad war, and a broad war would probably cause a typical US patriotic reaction among the populace, so recruitment centers might be so swamped that they might not go begging for recruits, and there would be no lack of manpower that would put pressure on the military to revoke "don't ask, don't tell" in the interest of increasing recruitment. (In other words, I speculate a draft probably won't be necessary.) For what it's worth, a section in our Draft Dodger article states that pretending to be homosexual in order to avoid the draft constitutes draft evasion, which is punishable. This book says that, at least during the Vietnam War, the penalty for draft evasion was as much as 5 years in jail and a US$10,000 fine. Tempshill (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you don't actually have to be gay, it's quite enough to be bisexual (and as things stand now, it's not like you need to actually engage in homosexual acts, it's enough to state that you feel those urges). In any case, what would you have to do to prove that you swing both ways ? Get photographed at a gay club? Kiss a guy? Listen to lot of Kylie Minogue? Really, I can't imagine a prosecutor bothering with something like that; there's no way you can prove that someone isn't a bisexual. Even if you get a previous statement from the guy claiming that he's completely straight, well, hey, maybe he was in the closet at the time. That would hardly be unusual. And in any case, the way don't ask, don't tell works right now, it applies to anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts". Hell, you don't even need to be the least bit gay; all you need to do is declare your intent to fool around with other guys, and that's pretty much all it takes. "I know I'm straight, but seriously guys, I'm gonna suck a penis the first chance I get, and you can take that to the bank." Boom, you're discharged. Is that stupid? Well, sure. But that's what you get from having a stupid policy in the first place. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The "m4m personals" on Craigslist are full of ads saying "I want a guy to suck my dick; straights only, no gays!" --Sean 12:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, sure. Denial is a beautiful thing. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) According to Homer Simpson, it's as simple as making a pass at your superior officer. Principal Skinner thinks it's a great idea. Steewi (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You should consider the possibility that, given current political climates, it's more likely that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy would be completely revoked than the draft be re-instituted. That is, it's likely that sometime before reinstating the draft, the US military would revoke its ban on openly gay soldiers. -- 128.104.112.114 (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Alcohol sale in Finland

Right now, a guy told on TV that it is illegal to sell alcohol within city limits in Finland. Searching the web gives the impression that Finns are heavy drinkers. I found out there was a prohibition sometime back, but not now. Perhaps he was talking about a specific city or a specific time period? 88.242.249.233 (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That guy was talking out of his ass. Retail sale of alcohol within city limits in Finland is perfectly legal, though anything stronger than beer can only be sold at the government-owned Alko stores (we have an alcoholic beverage retailing monopoly here) -- but they are quite plentiful. I am unaware of any city in Finland where the sale of alcohol is illegal, and I would imagine that such a city would be the subject of national ridicule. We did have a prohibition, but it ended in 1932 (and, like prohibitions everywhere, it was wholly ineffective in limiting the consumption of the prohibited substance). Alcoholism is a traditional Finnish problem; the idea that you can't buy booze here is as far-fetched as a major American city without a McDonald's. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange stone structure

Can anyone help identify this stone structure (link is to image on Commons) on the west bank (I think) of the Wear River, next to Prebends Bridge? The bank opposite to that of the Cathedral. It's about 3-4 metres high. Carcharoth (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That is Reveal by Richard Cole. --Cam (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you very much. Impressed with that. Those pages are good as well. From the name, I searched a bit and found this and this. The latter link (to a picture) will help if anyone reads this in future, as I now need to ask for this to be deleted from Commons as it is a modern artwork and copyright stuff applies. I think. I've made the picture into a link as well, which may go red at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You need to have commons delete it exactly as much as as you need to have commons delete every picture of every car, bridge, street, mobile phone, or building. Commons has a fairytale view of copyright that jibes with the law of no country on earth; if they were to apply it with any consistency they'd host nothing but scans from old books and pictures of clouds. We should not harm Wikipedia by abetting their quixotic folly. 87.112.85.111 (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough, they just told me it doesn't need deleting. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Are all sunglasses sold in the UK UV-protective?

Even if I buy a pair from Poundland will they still protect your eyes from UV? The ones I have already have the CE mark on them, which indicates they conform with euopean standards. But is the worst CE standard enough to significantly protect against UV? 78.151.102.179 (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

They should all have the CE mark which indicates they protect against UV.[7][8][9] Ideally you want BS EN 1836:2005[10] (there are also earlier versions of BS EN 1836) which shows they offer a high quality of protection. (Some products can self-certify they comply to CE regulations - not sure if this applies to sunglasses - but BS is a bit more stringent.) There's a risk if you buy cheap sunglasses that they're counterfeit and therefore don't really match up to standards, or are so badly manufactured that the protection will come off, crack, peel, etc. And the size of the sunglasses matters: large wraparound offer better protection to the eyes.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Alcohol vs drugs

Why is alcohol legal when other recreational drugs aren't? If you want to compare to a single specific drug, then I was thinking of cannabis, but comparisons to any drug would be fine... Vimescarrot (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There are historical reasons primarily. In the United States, for example, marijuana's illegality goes back to the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937—nothing more, nothing less. Add momentum and moral overtones and it's regarded as a grievous sin politically to advocate revoking its illegality (though it is of note that recent polls by Zogby say 52% of Americans believe in decriminalization of some form—which is pretty amazing, if you ask me).

Alcohol has been used for centuries but has not always been legal; see Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Prohibition in the United States, etc. In the end people in power decided that whatever the benefits of lessening the "evil" of alcohol might be, the illegality of it created vast criminal industries and a vast new category of casual criminals. It was re-legalized again with the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Anyway, all this is to say: it is somewhat arbitrary, it is based on political considerations in many cases, it is based on perceived ideas about the morality of certain vices, and it is based in part on the economics of it (hence cigarettes, by now know to be a major, major killer worldwide, but nobody is seriously planning to ban them for both economic and political reasons). If you are looking for a "logical" reason that marijuana is legally considered to be as or more dangerous and prone to abuse as, say, heroin, crack cocaine, and PCP.... there obviously isn't one. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Why the difference continues is because of inertia. You can't legalise most illegal drugs, because they kill people (to put it bluntly) and you'd annoy people; you can't illegalise alcohol or tobacco because it's against tradition, people's rights (it's my life, sort of thing) and naturally the tax benefits (governments used to actually admit that, eg. in the People's Budget) as well as non-compliance. So the mostly historical reasons have stood the test of time. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If by "test of time" you mean, "has been contentious for seventy years, is very blurry in some places, and at the moment a rather sizable group of people are seriously questioning quite a lot of the fundamental principles." I mean, the US Congress is just about set to let the FDA regulate cigarettes for health purposes, and, as noted, quite a lot of people think that the system of treating all mild narcotics as horrible immoral things is problematic and has a very detrimental affect on the society and the budget. Legalization of drugs is more complicated than "they kill people" (their illegalization, it has been argued, probably kills more people in the long run), and places that have legalized drugs to a great extent have reported generally much better success on related public health and crime issues than have the places that treat them as deadly contraband. (I'm not trying to start a debate here, but you're simplifying things quite a bit. The "drugs are bad and kill you" approach is a vast simplification of an extremely complicated issue, not to mention the wide variety of things that are categorized as "drugs".) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I was simply trying to avoid complications. I know it's complicated, but the health risks associated with drugs are still the number one reasons why those that are currently illegal won't be made legal, even if they are only as dangerous as legal ones. What I meant by 'test of time' was simply that the legal/illegal status of drugs, as a whole, and although regulation has changed, haven't changed basically at all in the UK, at least, in the last 50 years. The line that is legal/illegal (as opposed to levels of regulation) hasn't been crossed much. I was taking that example to the logical conclusion that this is due to inertia, and offered some reasons. Actually, there are a lot of similarities to gun ownership within the US and between the US and UK. Same contrast, and similar processes of restricting the traditionally allowed product in response to percieved dangers. And considering that gun legalisation (anything further than current) is way outside of mainstream in the UK , despite arguments similar to drugs (make it less 'cool', regulated is better than secret, that sort of thing), it may be fair to draw parallels to the drug issue, with some drugs never going to be made legal, and those that are, more highly regulated. I have no idea how strong drives are in parts of America to make guns largely illegal. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to read about cannabis, it's effects, dangers, classification, etc you could have a look at this Masters thesis: 'CANNABIS – RECLASSIFICATION – MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1971' (it is UK centric) here. Appendix A shows 'DRUGS RANKED FOR DANGEROUSNESS'. For example, tobacco - 112,000 fatalities a year; alchohol, 400,000 fatalities a year; heroin 700 fatalities a year. Interesting numbers. --Joe^Talk_Work 23:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sure that the number of people who die crossing the street is greater than the number of people who die jumping off 20-story buildings while listening to Green Day and eating a plastic bag. That doesn't mean crossing the street is more dangerous than jumping off buildings, plastic bag or not; it simply means vastly more people do the former than the latter.

A better way to assess a drug's harm would be to look at its physical effects. That's what this graph does, and as you can see, alcohol and tobacco are both ranked higher than marijuana. However, heroin easily tops the list; the only reason it causes only 700 fatalities a year is that far more people smoke and drink than use heroin. --Bowlhover (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is relevant to the assessment of relative harms. AllanHainey (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the largest US city without a McDonalds?

The question #Alcohol sale in Finland above led me to wondering what is the largest US city without a McDonalds? The nearest I can find to an answer on Google is this one, which lists Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Montpelier, Vermont. Google also finds at least 3 McD's locations in Harrisburg, but apparently none in Montpelier. Montpelier has a population of 8000 or so; is there anywhere more populous that doesn't? (For the sake of clarity let's take "city" to have its proper legal meaning, rather than any old conurbation). THanks. 87.112.85.111 (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe there is a McDonald's in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, population 49,958. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious how you came by that information. Is it a city you're familiar with personally, or what? --Anonymous, 19:01 UTC, June 14, 2009.

I did a Google Maps search for McDonald's in Cleveland Heights and didn't come up with any. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, but what prompted you to try that particular city for this search? --Anon, 07:26, June 15.

Montpelier is the only state capitol without a McDonalds. As a Vermont resident, I'm pretty happy with that. Dismas|^(talk) 19:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Montpelier is the only state capitol without <blank>, where <blank> is anything resembling organized civilization. Been to Montpelier several times myself. There's not much of a "to" there. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, when I was writing the phrase "as far-fetched as a major American city without a McDonald's", I pretty much guessed that something like this would happen. And I did it anyway. That's just how I roll. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll see your McDonalds and raise it, who knows what is the largest US incorporated place without any national fast-food outlet? Rockpocket 23:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't find a definitive source for a US town, but Barrow, Alaska (~4000 people) doesn't appear to have any. In the UK Llandeilo in Wales would qualify [11] with ~3000 people. Rockpocket 00:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't some towns have no-fast-food ordinances? I'm sure I've heard of such things at least being proposed. That would pretty much rule out a McDonalds unless it drastically changed its menu and dining style. APL (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Virginia City, Nevada seems to be such a place. Quoting the article: "Keeping with tradition, Virginia City does not have any chain stores or fast food restaurants." Contributions/152.16.16.75 (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's a McDonald's in Harrisburg Pennsylvania near Italian Lake. Source: I live nearby. As for this topic, how are you defining "largest"? If its by area than there might not be any McDonalds in Sitka, Alaska, the largest city by land area. As for population, you might want to look for city ordinances specifically banning McDonalds. A large city (over 20000) that bans McDonalds would be at least one of the largest in the country to do so. And by the way, Starbucks has since moved into town (in the Whitaker Center) ThemFromSpace 00:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind there is a McDonalds in Sitka. Go figure. ThemFromSpace 01:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

McDonald's has an electronic dead cat swinger that you can use to verify presence or absence. Harrisburg has several McDonaldses and the linked thread never said otherwise, it only said they didn't have a Starbucks. Montpelier and Cleveland Heights don't have McDonald's, but it kind of seems like cheating because the nearest one is 2–3 miles away, it just happens to be in a suburb with a different name. Bethel, Alaska (pop ~6000) appears to be the largest Alaskan city without a McDonald's, and when they lack McDonald's in Alaska they don't mess around. The nearest one looks to be about 350 miles away by plane. There are no roads. -- BenRG (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sharon, MA has 17, 408 people and nary a McD's209.6.18.79 (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Were the Original Egyptians Black?

Not the civilization and the dynasties, I mean were the Native Original Egyptians black? I heard that the Nubians were Egypts natives until the Sumerians came from the middle east and started the egyptians civilization and they moved south which they started the civlization Nubia when the egyptians came and bring thier culture to them which made Kush. thats what i heard though but is it a fact? Were the country egypt original natives were negroid? Were they there first before the egyptian civilization started?--arab 18:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerrorSonghai (talk • contribs)

There is a documented controversy on this. Altho I think it may be a case of mainstream scholarship on one side, and Afrocentrists on the other side, but I'm not real sure. See Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Friday (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

As would be expected from basic geography, Egypt has been a kind of transition zone between Africa and the middle east in a number of respects (including skin color), and I really don't see why this is some supposed great mystery which needs to receive some out-of-the-ordinary and speculative "explanation". Mesopotamian civilization certainly exerted some kind of influence on the early beginnings of Egyptian civilization, but the nature and extent of this influence has been debated (it may have mainly consisted of stimulus diffusion), and it certainly did not include large numbers of Sumerians settling in Egypt (something which can be excluded on basic linguistic grounds, among other reasons). AnonMoos (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that in the many centuries that man populated Egypt prior to 'civilisation' appearing, that there would have been black people and lighter skinned 'mediteranian' type people also. Especially as (the area we know as) Egypt would of been the main route which mankind probably left Africa.Popcorn II (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The question presupposes that it is possible to say unequivocally whether any given people is "black" or not. The very label "black" is one that is meaningful only in modern western cultures. For that matter, the meaning of the word "black" (or "noir" or "schwartz" etc) varies subtly from one western culture to another. No ancient people had a term that meant "black" in the modern sense. Indeed, in ancient times, there was really no concept of race. Races have little basis in biology; rather, they are categories into which modern western culture sorts people based on their appearance. If your question is, into which racial category would modern westerners sort the "original Egyptians", then I think even here, it is difficult to offer a simple answer. Egyptians today are mostly somewhere between "white" and "black" in modern terms. Some Egyptians may look more "white" to westerners; others may look more "black". Most probably look somewhere in between. All of the evidence suggests that historical movements of people into Egypt have been small relative to the population of Egypt at the time. This means that the new arrivals would have been absorbed into the existing population. Therefore, the appearance of Egyptians has probably not changed much since prehistoric times. As AnonMoos suggests, modern westerners would probably consider prehistoric Egyptians neither completely "white" nor completely "black". Marco polo (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In other words, the Arabs of modern Egypt would look rather similar to the ancient Egyptians? Our questioner's contribution history suggests that s/he is coming from an American perspective; in this context, if I understand your answers rightly, the answer would likely be no. The Census Bureau's definition of race includes those with ancestry in the Middle East and North Africa among "White"; they definitely don't fit the definition of "Black or African-American". This answer may be meaningless if the question is approached from a different direction, but as long as we're going from a common US perspective, it shouldn't be that difficult of a question. Nyttend (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A point I haven't seen mentioned in the debate is that Europeans have been evolving to be lighter coloured because of the lack of sun, for instance the gene SLC24A5 only became prevalent amongst them between 12 and 5 thousand years ago. I'm a bit surprised the paintings show Assyrians as so light colored as they wouldn't have had such such pressure to have light skin as those in northern Europe. I'd have thought it would be quite possible for Egyptians then to be a little darker than now even without any great movements of people. They didn't seem to cover themselves in robes which indicates they may have been too dark for the environment. Comparing colors then with now may be even less meaningful than the usual comparison of skin colors. Dmcq (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Museum of Egyptian Antiquities in Cairo has among it's items a display of small wooden figurines of an army of archers and lance bearers. Half of them dark tan, the other half what is usually described as "Nubian" and may be called "black" by comparisson. [12] Ramses II's wife is Nefertari is thought by some to have been Nubian. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The OP was asking about pre-civilisation.Popcorn II (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oldest Holiday (Part 2)

I asked earlier about the world's oldest celebrated holiday: "What is the oldest event which is celebrated as a holiday? I imagine there are many which predate Christmas. Also what is the oldest "ennial" (quadrennial, millennial, etc.) event that has been celebrated?" (see [[13]])

Anyway, I was able to located the 2,500 year celebration of Iran's monarchy which I believe predates any of the other suggestions. Out of curiosity, can anyone think of a holiday which is even older? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

In 1995-96, the "Jerusalem 3000" celebrations marked the 3,000th anniversary of King David's capture of the city. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Last year, Larnaca arbitrarily celebrated its 4,000th anniversary [14]. Warofdreams talk 00:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

September first is the start of year 7519 in the Byzantine calendar. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm did anyone celebrate the 7500th anniversary? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Are there any really old upcoming holidays I can celebrate? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

June 15

Cricket scoring

Reading Run (cricket) and Laws of cricket, I was unclear: do the batsmen always have to run whenever the ball is hit, or if it's really weakly hit, can they just stand still? In other words, does cricket have something comparable to baseball's force out? Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You do not have to run. So you can hit the ball and both batsmen can stay where they are. In backyard or schoolyard cricket, you may play rules where you are forced to run if you hit the ball. This is either called tippity or hit-n-run (depending on your location I suspect). - Akamad (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

They don't need to step out of their crease if they don't want runs, unless the ball reaches the fence. So if the batsman thinks he has hit the ball well enough, he can just stand still and he'll get the 4 or 6, but if the ball doesn't reach there, its just that he doesn't get any runs of he doesn't run. There is no compulsion. Rkr1991 (talk) 07:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You may find it interesting to know that, in opposite case, even if batsmen can possibly complete a run, a run (Leg bye) cannot be scored if batsman has neither attempted a stroke nor tried to avoid being hit. manya (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is extremely common to hit the ball and not to run. The prevalence of this varies between different forms of the game (Twenty20, one day cricket, first class cricket, test matches). In the last two forms of the game, which are the slowest, taking three to five days, I'm pretty sure batsmen run less than half the times they hit the ball. That is what the fielders are there for, after all, to stop the batsmen from taking runs. Mowsbury (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Was the Harkavy translation of Holy Scriptures changed in later printings

Hello, I read that Alexander Harkavy translated Isaiah 7:14 to say "virgin" when his translation of the Holy Scriptures was published in 1936; I bought a used copy of the same Bible printed in 1951 and the same verse says "young woman" - was it revised? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.131.33 (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am missing something in the question, It seems self-evident that, if the two editons are different, then the later one was revised. Are you asking if the earlier one said "virgin"? // BL \\ (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the versions you are referencing, but I know the language. In Hebrew, the word is "almah", which translates to young woman, not necessarily a virgin. If IN THIS CASE it means virgin is subject to fierce arguments. That also may explain your discrepancy. Mxvxnyxvxn (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The fierce arguments, of course, are whether the verse is a prophecy about Christ. Since the question the other day suggests Harkavy translated the Tanakh, and not the Christian Bible, I suppose this has to do with what the verse means from a Jewish perspective. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Perhaps I am missing something in the question, It seems self-evident that, if the two editons are different, then the later one was revised. Are you asking if the earlier one said "virgin"?" yes I guess I am asking if the first one did say "virgin" or if the source Iread saying it was translated this way was wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.131.33 (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Landy, Derek series Skullduggery Pleasant discrepancy

The article lists the 3rd book as The Faceless Ones and the 4th book as unnamed. Amazon.com has the 3rd book (published April 09) as Sceptre of the Ancients,and the 4th book as The Faceless Ones. Which one is correct? http://www.amazon.com/Faceless-Ones-Skulduggery-Pleasant/dp/0061240915/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245034486&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Scepter-Ancients-Skulduggery-Pleasant-Derek/dp/0061731552/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245034486&sr=1-4

Mxvxnyxvxn (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the publisher is HarperCollins - I'd go straight to the source to confirm this. see here Contributions/69.156.124.118 (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I got it. Sceptre of the Ancients is a renaming of the first novel. Of course you have to figure this out- It isn't actually listed that way. I'll change the entry to reflect this. Mxvxnyxvxn (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bathtub Portrait

I'm having a name blank-out. Who was that French newspaperman who printed names of people to die in the Terror? After his death he was painted in a bathtub. It's a famous painting. 71.174.23.126 (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Brighton

Jean-Paul Marat? (The Death of Marat) Bus stop (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's him! Thank you. 71.174.23.126 (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Brighton

WWII Switzerland

I was searching informations about the destiny of Switzerland if the Axis Powers won. I mean, do official projects regarding the annexation/partition between Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy exist? Did Hitler spoke about this, expecially considering the large germanic population of Sw.? Did Mussolini wanted the predominantly italian Canton Ticino for his Greater Italy? I'm aware of Operation Tannenbaum article but it doesn't refer to (ipotetical) post war effects. I've heard about secret plans to divide Sw. between Germany and Italy (in particular Ticino and Graubünden where to be assigned to Italy) but I can't find solid references. --Contributions/151.51.19.115 (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a good question, and despite being interested in WW2 I've never heard anything concrete about it either. They had a fairly close relationship with Nazi Germany throughout the war (Nazi Gold etc) so my guess would be it would have become a protectorate of the Reich, maybe a model protectorate to replace Denmark. Prokhorovka (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Here might help. It's ogt a lot of stuff on German intentions, and other links. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 10:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hitler was more specific about his intentions toward Switzerland, which he described in August 1942 as a pimple on the face of Europe and a state that could not be allowed to endure. He was filled with hatred and contempt for the materialistic and democratic values of the Swiss people, and he denounced them as a racial miscarriage, "a mishegotten branch of our Volk." Whereas he was anxious to attract Scandinavians and Dutch as peasant colonizers to the newly conquered territories of the east, he believed the Swiss could be of use there only as innkeepers.

Hitler did acknowledge the Swiss to be Germanic, however, much as he otherwise despised them. The probability is therefore great that when he carried out his intention to put an end to the existence of Switzerland as a state, he would at the same time have initiated policies designed to regain the Swiss for Germandom and to incorporate the bulk of the Swiss population into his Germanic Reich. This was certainly the intention of Heinrich Himmler, Hitler's grand inquisitor for racial affairs who, in September 1941, was exchanging views with his faithful lieutenant Gottlob Berger about the suitability of various personalities for the position of Reichsstatthalter in Switzerland and the chances for a genuine amalgamation (zusammenwachsen) of the German and Swiss peoples. A document from the Himmler files bearing the letterhead Reichsführer SS, SS Hauptamt, Aktion S[chweiz], contains a detailed plan for the establishment of Nazi rule in Switzerland. Although there is no evidence that this plan was endorsed by Himmler or any other high-level Nazi authorities, the fact that such a plan was drawn up at all may be interpreted as an indication of intent. Rich, N. (1974). Hitler's War Aims: The establishment of the new order. pp. 401-2. OCLC 256467476.

—eric 19:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Communism Judaism

Do Jewish support Communism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.26 (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This article may shed some light on that: Jewish Bolshevism. Bus stop (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Some Jews support Communism, and the first groups to settle in Israel post-WW1 were socialist in nature. However I think it would be unreasonable to suggest Judaism is notably left-wing as a religion. Like other religions it has the left-wing elements of strong community values and charity, but the right-wing values of powerful leaders and old fashioned gender roles. Prokhorovka (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Some Americans possibly came to hold this view in light of the activities of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in the 1940's. Edison (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly a large majority of Jews today do not support communism. Certainly there are some Jews today (like people of other religions or, more often, no religion) who support communism. However, supporters of communism, whether Jewish or not, are somewhat rare today. Marco polo (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In Tsarist Russia, Jews were oppressed and persecuted by the central government, and they also tended to be much more literate and urban than the average of the population as a whole -- and the very natural result of this situation was that Jews were involved in most Russian left wing groups (not just Communist groups) at a rate much higher than their proportion of the population as a whole. However, the original disproportionate presence of Jews in the Soviet Communist party had pretty much dissipated by 1935, when Stalin had substantially remade the party according to his own specification -- and since that time, accusations of "Jewish Bolshevism" etc. have been pretty much slanted political rhetoric or ignorant hate speech... AnonMoos (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that the original query is a bit trollish (considering the other q on judaism/nudism/homosexuality below), i think we should state two things; Whilst the vast majority of Jews are not communists (neither today or at any point in history), Jews were represented in the early Marxist movement far beyond their proportion in the population as a whole. This was true not just in Russia, but throughout Europe, Middle East, parts of Latin America and the US. I think AnonMoos' view is correct, that Jews as a highly urbanized, relatively more educated group which was also target for social discrimination/oppression, could easily relate to communist discourse than other communities. --Soman (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Iran

Has Iran had unrest of the magnitude they are currently experiencing at any other time since 1979, or is this unprecidented? Contributions/65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Our article has some answers, and certainly lots of commentators seem to think so. I guess no-one can say for sure, so look at the facts and make up your own mind. Prokhorovka (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

We have not seen this degree of popular uprising in Iran since 1979, when young folk turned out before the cameras to display their anger at the United States by shaking their fists and shouting something that sounded like "BOOM BOOM BOMB-EE-BOMB!" This resonated strangely with the contemporaneous record "Bomb Iran" by Vince Vance and the Valiants, to the tune of the Beach Boys' hit "Babarann." Despite this, the U.S. did not, at that time, bomb Iran. Edison (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Gotai

Hi, I requested an article on Gotai, but I'm trying to see if I can't get more information here, as the request an article page suggests.

I'm wondering if anyone knows any more about this cultural practice. I first came across it in my Introduction to Cultural Anthropology course, but I can't seem to locate any more information on it on the internet. I'll quote from the textbook:

In Japan, negative attitudes about cutting the body explain the much lower rates of surgery there than in North America. The Japanese Concept of gotai refers to the value of maintaining bodily intactness in life and death to the extent that even ear piercing is devalued. "Newspapers reported that onr of the qualifications of a bride for Crown Prince Naruhito was that she not have pierced ears." (Ohnuki-Tierney 1994:235).[...]

¹

The paragraph goes on to say this is why organ transplant rates are lower in Japan, etc. The citation for Ohunki-Tierney is: Ohnuki-Tierney, Emiko. 1994, Brain Death and Organ Transplantation: Cultural Bases of Medical Technology. Current Anthropology 35(3):233-242.

Any help locating information on this topic would be great, I've attempted to Google it, but nothing that came up seems to match as far as I can tell; I suspect 'Gotai' is the English pronuication of the Japanese word, so we may be out of luck.

thanks.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 16:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

¹Miller, Barbara D., Penny Van Esterik, and John Van Esterik. Cultural Anthropology. 3rd Canadian ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA: Pearson Allyn and Bacon, 2005.

I don't know if this has anything to do with it: Gutai group, but I bring it to your attention just in case. Bus stop (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's possible it's related, but I'm not sure how.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Try searching for "gotai manzoku".—eric 19:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem to be what my textbook was talking about, although I'm not too sure what I'm reading here- a lot of information from google seems to be related to Japanese activism to elevate disabled people to an equal status. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 23:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Olive Lembe Sita and Chantal Biya

From Joseph Kabila's article said Kabila's daughter is born in 2001 and Joseph marry olive Kabila in 2006? How is this possible? Joseph marry one wife or two wives? And about Chantal Biya, it said she was born in Cameroon, but she is essentially white. Is her mom black or white. One of her parnts is white. And it said Chantal Biya was born in 1971 but what month? Is it going to be like April, May or July? To calculate the odds, is Chantal closer to 38 years younger han Paul or 39?--69.226.33.189 (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The question about the daughter's birthdate ("Is it possible?") is simply answered. Of course, it is possible that she was born before her parents were married. Whether it is true or not, I don't know. The article on Chantal Biya answers your other question in respect of nationality. I have no idea how you might confirm skin colour. // BL \\ (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Could this be possible for Olive Lembe di Sita to be marry with somebody else prior to Joseph Kabila. Mom have to have a dad to have a kid, if she wasn't marry at all in 2001, then this is impossible olive sita would have a kid. Chantal Biya article said born in 2001 only, but didn't say which month.--69.226.33.189 (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if this comes as a shock, but . . . you don't have to be married to have a child. As the child is said to be that of both Kabilas (Joseph and Olive) then it is certainly possible that Joseph is the father and Olive the mother, even though they were not married to each other when the child was born. "Possible" is different from "true". however, and I don't know the truth. The WP article says that Olive had been Joseph's fiancée since 2000. I have found nothing about an earlier marriage for her. // BL \\ (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• But how could this happen. Joseph Kabila's father die in 2001 he was only 61. olive lembe sita was single at then. Women have to have a men to give offsprings. This is no way for women to give birth without a man. I doubt the baby Kabila is adopt, since they have the same last names.--69.226.33.189 (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If Kabila and Olive had a child together then it is almost certain they had sex together. None of this requires being married first. And what any of it has to do with the death of Kabila's father, I don't know. // BL \\ (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

June 16

Finding School Histories

I am trying to find the date that Washington School in Waterford, WI originally opened. ANy history about the school would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.155.229 (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If you don't get a response here (and this is a very specific query), try calling the school and asking them. Most schools are proud of their history, and will have at least one person keeping some form of archive about it. Prokhorovka (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Divinity

Reading a book about archaeoastronomy, I found some reference to a japanese god called Hitokotunusi but I can't find informations about him anywhere. Even Google seem to ignore it. --151.51.19.115 (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This looks as though someone took some liberty with transliteration. I could only find one reference: A German book titled "Raetselhafte Phenomaene" (mysterious phenomena). If this deity does exist, I assume the name would usually be transliterated quite differently. Wait for someone who speaks Japanese to come by here or try contacting one of these users [[15]]. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No mention (or plausible basis for a mis-spelling or similar) found in my available references, which include extracts from the creation myth in the Nihongi. For interest, what's your archaoastronomy book's Author and Title? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, in the usual "Hepburn" transliteration of modern Japanese, t before u becomes "tsu" and s before i becomes "shi". AnonMoos (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I know very little about Japanese gods, but it's probably Hitokotonushi (ja:一言主, Google search). "Si" is a variant romanization of "shi" as AnonMoos mentioned, but "tu" for "to" is just a misspelling. -- BenRG (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Joseph's decree

In page 89 it says that Joseph decreed a reform 1786 "... that obliged government officials to explain legislation in the language of the various peoples of the monarchy." I have not found any information on this decree. Could someone give me the the source?174.3.103.39 (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This refers to Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor, who reigned from 1765 to 1790. Our article mentions that he issued 6,000 laws and 11,000 decrees, but unfortunately there aren't any sub-articles that I see that go into significant detail. This book page and the few pages before it are probably of interest; they discuss his effort to reduce the 4 languages that decrees were posted in, down to just German. Tempshill (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Were Adam and Eve the first humans?

Copied from the help desk. SoWhy 12:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been debating this question for quite sometime; were Adam and Eve the first creation of mankind? On June 16,2009 I spent hours on the phone arguing on the behalf of this issue. The peron that I was discussing this with was a female minister, a friend of a brother of mine. First she started with Genesis 1:26 which states; Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image,according to Our likeness;let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the , over all all the earth and every creeping thing that creeps on earth.

Now this next portion is what I do not understand. Genesis 1:27; So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. This verse I believe is talking about some other humans I believe because Adam was not created according to Genesis 1. Genesis 2:7 tells us that man was formed from the dust of the ground. It appears to me by these verses in Genesis that there was humans before the creation of Adam and Eve. This was what the discussion was all bout during that phone conversation. Also I was told that Adam and Eve was created to begin the lineage of Christ. Please help me figure this one out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.235.164 (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Man was not created he evolved see Human evolution article.Teapotgeorge^Talk 13:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that we're restricting ourselves to the Judeo-Christian creation account (and let's please do, that's obviously the thrust of the question), there are two creation stories at the top of Genesis. This fact is the subject of much theological debate. You may want to start at creation according to Genesis. — Lomn 13:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Commenting on this: Internal consistency and the Bible#Old Testament describes the contradiction of Genesis 1 and 2 in the historical context. Regards SoWhy 13:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I was taught that Adam and Eve were the first created humans ever, but after their son Cain kills Abel, Cain goes off to another land and marries/reproduces . . . what answer you choose to see in that discrepancy is up to you! I'm not sure I understand the relevance of knowing one way or the other. Maedin\^talk 13:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You might also find this article helpful: Preadamite. It deals with how the dillema you mention has been seen through history. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Classic biblical scholars wrangle over those passages. There do appear to be two accounts of the creation of man, and there are various explanations for this given. One of the most common (sorry, I have no citation right now) is that Adam was initially created hermaphrodite, before being revised at the time of the creation of woman into male only. This is backed up by the text, where it says that he (singular) was created "man and woman". There's also a Midrashic story that Adam's original wife was Lillith. Hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Cain married a girl in the next valley whose people had evolved from earlier primates. Coincidentally, she was the first to have evolved far enough to be considered human. Edison (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You may also want to consider if or why Adam, Eve, and presumably God had bellybuttons, considering that they hadnt ever been gestated or born. A point Ernest Gellner interestingly alludes to in his article about the origins of nations, "Do Nations Have Navels?". Willy turner (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Humans evolved so there was no single person that was the first human. Bubba73 (talk), 17:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a time, not too long ago, when it was common for humans to easily believe two logically contradictory statements. It is still common when it benefits human laziness, stupidity, etc... When Genesis was recorded as a written document, after many generations of being an oral tradition, it was common for humans (even very intelligent humans) to believe two creation stories that contradicted one another. There was no reason to try and find a way to make one work with the other. Now, we have a need to have one "true" story, so there is a lot of work to undo the stories and rationalize a way to make one work with the other. -- kainaw™ 17:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to a comment on my talk page... I am not stating that the two stories in Genesis (which the questioner references) absolutely must be incompatible with one another. I am stating that when they were written it was not necessary that they be compatible. Contradiction was acceptable. Now, contradiction is not acceptable. However, changing the Bible is only acceptable on a very minor scale - such as translating what the original text is most likely to mean instead of what it literally means. So, we are placing a current restriction on a book written when the restriction did not exist. That will certainly cause a problem. -- kainaw™ 19:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that what's written above is just plain rubbish. It falls into a trap of believing that earlier people were not just differently-informed, but actually stupid. There is no reason to believe this. Many individuals from earlier times were much more intelligent than you or I. Doubting that is just self-centred thinking.

The idea that contradiction was somehow acceptable then and not now is just ridiculous. Even today if you read two history books about the same events you can find they appear to contradict each other quite frequently. It's about describing the events from a different point of view, and we have no reason to think that ancient people regarded that any differently from us. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to ignore Lomn's plea to restrict myself to the Judeo-Christian creation account because there is no Judeo-Christian creation account. What do you do when a book presents one completely fabricated creation story on one page, then flatly contradicts it on the very next? There's no reason to decide that one story is the creation account and not the other.

Unfortunately, the Bible contradicts itself on many other issues: Is God merciful or is he vengeful? Does he have a body or does he not? Who could Cain possibly have married if the only woman alive was his mother? On all of these issues, the Bible cannot be said to be advancing an opinion because it advances two mutually incompatible ones at the same time.

It is the job of authors to ensure their books are understandable, and not the job of readers to sort out obvious logical errors. Dweller cites somebody who claims Adam was a hermaphrodite, but if you're willing to believe that, you should have no problem believing the author made both creation stories up. It's also possible that Adam and Eve were two of the millions of people who existed back then; the Bible simply doesn't say it. It's also possible that the two creation stories happened in different universes. The author of Genesis is no longer alive, so we cannot find out what he really meant; we can only guess, but without evidence, none of the guesses are more valid than the others.

If the above seems like a pointless rant, my point is this: the question is not answerable because the only thing the reference desk can give the OP is speculation, not solid, factual evidence regarding the author's intended meaning. --Bowlhover (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Vulgate Sources of Alexander the Great

I know that Diodorus & Curtius Rufus are part of the "Vulgate Tradition", but are any other sources? I'm also trying to find some advantages of the material of these sources, but so far can only find negatives. Some help would be much appreciated :)

There are a huge number of Alexander romances, although I don't know if they are part of the "vulgate tradition" per se. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Population of Canada over 50

Would someone kindly point me to a place where I can find out how many people who are still in the workforce in Canada are over 50 years of age? Thanks. // BL \\ (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Best I can find is this, which says 15.3% were over 55 in 2006. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You might already have tried this, but I thought I'd mention Statistics Canada ("by subject", left column) Jørgen (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was trying to avoid the Stats Canada site as it gives me a headache, but it does seem the logical place. I have been able to extrapolate closely enough to satisfy the need I had for the information. Appreciate your help. // BL \\ (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Bible sales

Who gets the money from Bible sales --Thanks, Hadseys 19:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoever you the buyer give money to, and whoever else gets some of that money passed on to them. This will include the seller, distributor, publisher, printer and maybe (depending on the edition) the translator, editor or annotator. Algebraist 19:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• ye but who holds the copyright —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.184.222 (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It depends on which Bible you are referring to. There are many (MANY) versions of the Bible - each with a different copyright. -- kainaw™ 21:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a little bit of information in copyright on religious works. Algebraist 21:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Relevant bit here is: "The original text of ancient books, such as the Bible, Rig Veda, etc. predate any copyright laws. However, translations of that text may be recent enough to fall under copyright law, and commentary or cross-notes added to the text may be copyrighted. Of course that copyright will belong to the person, persons, or organization that translated or added material to the text, not God (or any particular god or gods)." (Note that in the case of the King James Bible even though the text is too old for the Berne Convention it is under Crown Copyright in the UK.) --173.66.250.169 (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone might like to poke into Billy Graham's organization's finances. There is a long-standing question about how clean that organization is or was. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Why? What does Billy Graham have to do with the OP's question?10draftsdeep (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never even heard it suggested that Billy Graham, or any of his organizations, were involved with selling Bibles. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the copyright holds until 70 years after the death of the author (God), who is not dead. --80.58.205.37 (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Not according to Nitzsche...Livewireo (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In the U.S., the courts have declared that they're really not in the buisness of trying to decide whether or not a text is or is not the product of divine revelation (this came up in the lawsuit over the copyright of the Urantia Book...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Therapeutic Communities in Female Prisons in the US

How many Therapeutic Communities are there in female prisons, in the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.108.217.62 (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

June 17

Sociological topics

Is there any websites where I can view a sociological topic regarding culture, and theoretical prspectives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.151 (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you taken a look yet at our Portal:Sociology and Portal:Culture? Each has a "Categories" list that may be helpful. Tempshill (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Judaism versus Nudism and Homosexual

Does Judaism support nudism and homosexuality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.151 (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

See Homosexuality and Judaism and Tzniut. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

religioustolerance.org claims that there is no prohibition on nudism in the Hebrew Bible (or New Testament)[16] and prophets often appear naked, though I don't know what subsequent rabbinical tradition (Talmud, Mishnah, etc) has to say about nudity. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Maltelauridsbrigge, your comment about views of the Talmud & Mishna is covered by the Tzniut article quite thouroughly. Mxvxnyxvxn (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin - Illegitimate Children

I was listenting to a talk show tonight and the host said Benjamin Franklin had 13 or 14 illegitimate children.

I read the article on Wikipedia and it only mentions 1 illegitimate son and the 2 children of his common-law marriage. I searched on several other sites and found no mention of additional children. Is there any proof that he had that many children?

Thank you ==== —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellerwynn7 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no such proof, and, I think, no reasonable suspicion that he had any unacknowledged illegitimate children. Franklin's son Francis Folger died at age 4, meaning only two children survived him: his daughter Sarah, by Deborah Read, and his son William, by an unknown mother. Both are named in his will, and no other children are named. "Common-law marriage", of course, is the way history books have chosen to sanitize Franklin's relationship with Deborah Read; it was not a common-law marriage (she already had a husband), even though Wikipedia's article credulously "believes" it, citing an undependable source which even absurdly assigns a date to the "marriage"! Perhaps the talk show was confused by Franklin being the 15th (and last) child of his father Josiah Franklin (and the 8th of his mother Abiah Folger), meaning he had 14 siblings? - Nunh-huh 05:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, there's no "proof" at all, but of course that has never stood in the way of a good story. People have long enjoyed the legend of Franklin the ladies' man, and so writers over the years have invented affairs and illegitimate children for him. For example, because Franklin addressed one young woman in a letter as "my daughter", some writers decided to take him literally. For a scholarly view of the popular myths of Franklin's supposed dalliances, see Benjamin Franklin and Women (Penn State Press, 2000), edited by Lary Tise. There it is pointed out that there is no documentary evidence that Franklin had any illicit affairs after his common law marriage to Deborah Read. (It's even possible that Read was the mother of Franklin's illegitimate son.) Franklin had close, playful relationships with many women in his long life, relationships that appear to have been platonic. —Kevin Myers 05:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

help this guy out (short story ID)

from the College Confidential forums:

help me ID this short story please! argh this is bothering me! lol. for a practice AP English Lit we once read an excerpt from a story about people who never died, who were either do nows or do laters. they would have all the time in the world ot do everything, but never stood out and always felt the pressures of parents and other earlier generations, so many committed suicide.

This is really bugging me too. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of it sounds remarkably like the plot of Zardoz, but it doesn't sound like a complete fit. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Iran protests

In the current protests, one of the reported slogans is "death to the dictator". Who are they referring to? F (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe they're referring to current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Wolfgangus (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

So they don't have problems with the Supreme Leader? F (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A large number of Iranians according to recent (and not entirely reliable polls, it's difficult to poll there) polls do want the Supreme Leader elected. But he hasn't broken the rules to hold onto his position, so at the moment people are angry at Ahmadinejad. Prokhorovka (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have read that a better translation is "death to the dictatorship". Tempshill (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Mount Rushmore

What was the criteria of selecting the four presidents depicted on mt. rushmore?Shraktu (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal preference of Gutzon Borglum? Washington and Lincoln presided over the two greatest crises the U.S. has faced, while Jefferson was the most intellectually-influential president. Teddy Roosevelt is the choice which hasn't held up quite as well -- many nowadays would prefer FDR in his place... AnonMoos (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

According to our Mount Rushmore article: "Between October 4, 1927, and October 31, 1941, Gutzon Borglum and 400 workers sculpted the colossal 60-foot (18 m) carvings of U.S. presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln to represent the first 150 years of American history. These presidents were selected by Borglum because of their role in preserving the Republic and expanding its territory" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livewireo (talk • contribs) 13:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Matilda of Tuscany's marriage to Welf II

Matilda of Tuscany married to Welf II, Duke of Bavaria, around 1090. Welf II's article mentioned he left her and switched to Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor's side, in 1095. Even though Welf II left her would they still be consider married according to religous laws during the time. Was there ever a legal divorce between the two?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe she got annulment. Just a guess. --151.51.19.115 (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC) As far as I know he was impotent, thus unable to have children. She probably got annulment. --151.51.19.115 (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In the Italian Wikipedia is written that she was the one to make the wedding proposal. It was a political stategy to counterbilance Henry IV. She received him in a very sumptous way, but for two days after the wedding, he refused the nuptial bed. The third day Matilda even lied down naked on a table, but even that was ineffective. She than started to insult him causing him to escape. --151.51.19.115 (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If they had no children it would be fairly easy to get an annulment; they could just claim they never consummated the marriage, and no one would really bother checking to see if that was true. Matilda was also a huge supporter of Gregory VII, so it would be quite easy to get an annulment even if they did have children. It's all politics at this level, religious law actually has very little to do with it. (There is an example in crusader Jerusalem about a hundred years later where a marriage was annulled, the children were legitimized by a special dispensation, and they still succeeded to the throne.) If you're just a regular everyday peasant you'll be bound to canon law more strictly, of course, but Matilda was extremely powerful and had extremely powerful friends. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ha, naturally I picked an obscure example. The more obvious one is Eleanor of Aquitaine and Louis VII of France, who, like Amalric I of Jerusalem and Agnes of Courtenay, had their marriage annulled on the grounds of consanguinity, an extremely convenient excuse for people who just didn't like each other anymore. Their children were also legitimized. However, if the pope didn't like you and you did something egregiously sinful, it would be hard to get an annulment. Philip I of France kicked out his first wife and declared himself married to someone else's wife and was excommunicated for it by Pope Urban II (who would have been responsible for Matilda's annulment, not Gregory VII as I mistakenly wrote above - but Urban had also been a close supporter of Gregory). Another possible excuse for an annulment in her case was that she was far older than Welf and past child-bearing age. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Polygamy and demographics

Is it true that the cause of young single men contemplating becoming suicide bombers in muslim countries is that they can't find a wife due to polygamy?--Marble Garden Zone (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me answer your question with another question. How many Mormon SB have you heard about? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

How many Mormon polygamists have you heard about? The Mormon faith moved away from polygamy years ago (except for a very small minority). --Tango (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There is very rarely a single cause for such things. Difficulty finding a wife could be a factor in some cases, but it isn't likely to be the sole factor in any case and isn't likely to be factor in every case. --Tango (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it the cause? No. Such motivations absolutely cannot be boiled down to such a simplistic statement. Is it a cause? Almost certainly; given the number of suicide bombings that occur, there's a good chance that at least one is motivated at least in part by this. Is it a significant cause? Probably not (though not for the Mormon example offered above; that has nothing to do with this). Our article on suicide attacks notes that religion generally, and martyrdom specifically, is a key influence on suicide bombers. Many additional resources can be found, including via Google Scholar. — Lomn 15:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a fair number of women suicide bombers these days, and married men too. But, yes, a majority are single men, but I think that the reasons, which are certainly complex, are far more to do with lack of responsibility for a family and the traditional roles of men and women in radical Islamic circles. It's also about who is impressionable and who feels hopeless. And, it seems, many commentators believe it's about poverty too, but I think that's contentious.

On a tangent, but related to this, how widespread is polygamy in the modern Islamic world? What, in particular, do the more radical Islamic clerics have to say on the subject? --Dweller (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In the Arab countries, it's really not too prevalent outside Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries... AnonMoos (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What about in Palestine and in Iraq, where most of the suicide bombings are taking place? --Dweller (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Lebanon general election 2009 results

How did you guys get the results of the Lebanese election 2009 showing Future Movement- 30 seats, P.S.P. with 10 seats, Hezbollah with 13, Amal with 11, Lebanese Democratic Party with 2, Marada with 4, Free Patriotic Movement with 19? According to this website, it showed less than what you wrote for the results. Did you make the results up?

Yeah, there's no source for the results in the article. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 18:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad hijab crackdown

Mahmoud said he would do a crackdown on women who were wearing the hijab inapprppiately and would send them to jail if they did. the question is all Iranian women, reagrdless of their religion wore hijab. How would the police know which Iranian women is a Christian, Jew, Sunni or Zoroastrian? This crackdown was meant on Shi'a Muslim women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.227 (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're posing an argument here and not really a question for a reference desk. Tempshill (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about Iran, but a I know other highly religious countries often require you to state your religion on your ID. --Tango (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper of General Circulation

What is the definition of "newspaper of general circulation"?

To illustrate: Brainerd is a medium size town in Minnesota and it has its own newspaper. Minneapolis is a large city over 200 miles away and has a newspaper, the Star Tribune, which is sold throughout Minnesota, including in Brainerd.

Clearly the newspaper in Brainerd is a newspaper of general circulation in Brainerd. The question I must answer is whether the Star Tribune is also a newspaper of general circulation in the Brainerd area. What are the criteria to determine whether it is?

Background: I am obligated to place an ad for a job opening in "the newspaper of general circulation" in the Brainerd area that is "most appropriate" to the job. If the Star Tribune is a newspaper of general circulation in Brainerd, then I must consider whether it is a more appropriate newspaper than the local Brainerd newspaper. But if the Star Tribune is not a newspaper of general circulation in Brainerd, then I would not meet my obligation by placing an ad there.

I have spoken with people at two newspapers and at one State newspaper association, and so far have not gotten a definitive answer. One person suggested that if the newspaper has any circulation at all in Brainerd, it is a newspaper of general circulation there - but she admitted that she was merely expressing her opinion and did not have any source for it.67.139.18.115 (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You could place the ad in both papers, which would ensure your compliance. Anyway, you already said that the local Brainerd paper is unquestionably a newspaper of general circulation in Brainerd, so why are you obligated to consider whether another paper is "more appropriate"? Tempshill (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

One consideration is whether you want people in the wider area to apply for the job. Sometimes the government wants to make sure that a diverse range of people become aware of job openings. Depending on the cities and papers, advertising only locally might make the applicant pool more homogeneous than is desired by whomever is "obligating" you to advertise in a "general circulation" paper. Edison (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

German heel-click salute

Some time ago, it came to my attention that members of the German military used to salute by clicking their heels together. When was this introduced and did it ever end? Was it used instead of a hand salute? With the use of a free hand, one can salute while walking but this is not possible for the heel-mediated salute, so what was the protocol/guidance for it's use? ----Seans Potato Business 19:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

An 1873 publication referred to the German military manner: "well squared shoulders, a well belted waist, a regulation spine, an angular elbow, a click of the heels, a salute that is meant to be at once fascinating and haughty..." I found a reference to its use in the 1870 Franco-Prussian War (though in fiction written in 1897). Google book search shows many references to in in the First and in the Second World War, by German soldiers. It plays an important role in the James Garner World War 2 movie 36 Hours. It accompanied the hand raised Hitler Salute in the Hitler years [17]. Presumably it became an official part of the German or Prussian military customs by 1870, continuing through WW1 and perhaps WW2. It was possibly discontinued by East and West Germany as part of de-nazification, but I could find no account of its banning. Edison (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Religion and violence

Are there any theories that explain why very religious societies are often also very violent? Eg Northern Ireland and other places/ 89.241.37.231 (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could start with Clash of Civilisations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it has more to do with conflict, power, etc. Some extremely religious societies (such as Tibet or the Australian Aborigines) are not very violent at all.Popcorn II (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

First you'd need to demonstrate that such a correlation existed. Only then would you be able to attempt to demonstrate causation, and then move on to explanation. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Religious societies are often very violent, but non-religious societies are also often very violent. (the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, the Khmer Rouge, etc.) Religion is likely a red herring for the cause of violence. The reason it's often quoted, though, is that humans suffer from tribalism and ingroup bias - the tendency to think that people who are part of "our group" (even when that group is as arbitrary as having the same birthday) should get preferential treatment, and outsiders are little better than animals. In that respect, religion makes a *great* ingroup/outgroup divider. But the thing to realize is that religion is not causing the violence associated with the us vs. them conflict, it's just a convenient separator. Other dividers (capitalist vs. communist, immigrant vs. native, black vs. white, poor vs. rich, town vs. gown, etc.) can and have been used as excuses for ingroup vs. outgroup violence. -- 128.104.112.114 (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There's also a very woolly term in your question: 'very religious societies'. What do you mean by a very religious society? Two obvious meanings would be 'having a large proportion of believers' and 'having a large proportion of practicing adherents' (these two are not even necessarily the same). In this sense, I doubt that Northern Ireland is significantly more 'religious' than a number of other parts of the British Isles. What is significant in Northern Ireland is the degree to which people tend to identify themselves by their religion. --ColinFine (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)