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 10

YHWH

Sorry if you're Jewish :) I know that most observant Jews aren't supposed to say the name but would they be offended to hear a Gentile (non-Jew) say it? (in an educational or otherwise non-confrontational context of course, not in a mocking-your-religion context). How does this vary by denomination? thnks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.95.0 (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that most orthodox and ultraorthodox people say adonai, which means lord. Others just say God or Yahweh or sometimes El or Elohim. It varies from person to person, but generally the Reform Jews and Conservative Jews have no fear of saying God's name, especially the reform. Reconstructionists, I am not sure, but I think they follow us Reform Jews. In prayer, most people will just say adonai, because that is customary. You're not required to though. The reason for Yahweh being written as YHWH btw is because that is the latinisation of the four Hebrew letters, Yud, hei, vav, hei, (יהוה)that make up God's name. It doesn't have anything to do with respect though, just no vowels except in the form of nikkud. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

To add on, while most Orthodox Jews wouldn't say it themselves, I don't believe they'd really be that upset over a Gentile's use of the name. If anything, I would think they'd have only a slight discomfort with hearing it used in an educational light. And as Petrie said, the more "lenient" denominations wouldn't offer any protests at all. ^Avic_ennasis @ 08:08, 8 Sivan 5771 / 10 June 2011 (UTC)

In regard to "saying His name", is it even known how YHWH is properly pronounced? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

We do not know how the Tetragrammaton was pronounced in ancient times. Yahweh is a modern convention. Marco polo (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

And there is the equally-artificial "Jehovah". In any case, since we don't know how YHWH was pronounced, we can't really "say" His name anyway, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct. I believe in modern days it's more along the lines of gezeirah than anything. Jews have historically implemented additional "safety zones" or "fences" via gezeirah - an example is that the Torah commands us not to work on Shabbos, but a gezeirah takes this a step further and commands us not to even touch our tools on Shabbos, less we forget what day it is and accidentally perform work. By not pronouncing the name, we fulfill at least two mitzvot; we avoid the desecration of His Name, and we sanctify and respect His Name. ^Avic_ennasis @ 17:33, 8 Sivan 5771 / 10 June 2011 (UTC)

See The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site.

—Wavelength (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

[The website http://www.watchtower.org/ is obsolete, but Wayback Machine has archives of the brochure "The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever" indexed at https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.watchtower.org/e/na/index.htm. Today the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses is http://www.jw.org, but the brochure is not there at this time.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)]

Why are Jews not allowed to say YHWH? --84.62.193.111 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It stems from a particular interpretation of Chillul Hashem, that commands us not to profane the His Name. Allowing it to become a commonplace word used every day was considered by some to be disrespectful, and would not give His Name the reverence it deserves. So, out supreme council (The Great Sanhedrin) got together about this issue, and decided that His Name should never be pronounced. This was added into Jewish law (D'Rabbanan) into what we now know as Sanhedrin 90a, which states that those who pronounce his name have no place in the World to Come. ^Avic_ennasis @ 20:25, 10 Sivan 5771 / 12 June 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, the Maharetz Chajes, among others, would explain the latter most assertion (that those who do so lose their next-worldly portion) as an exaggeration in common style of the sages of the Talmud, similar to when they say that 'one who get angry is likened to one who worshiped idols' and 'one who embarrasses another is likened to one who killed another' -- these were statement made by the sages to emphasize their message by amplification and magnification of the consequences to obscene extents, but not meant to be taken literally. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Pensions and salaries in occupied France

I am just curious about what happened to public and private sector salaries and pensions - and personal savings after Germany occupied France during WWII. Even a point in the right direction would be appreciated. Thanks 92.4.32.2 (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As our article German occupation of France during World War II points out, the Germans imposed an artificially low exchange rate on the French franc, resulting in a devaluation of the franc. This would have reduced the buying power of the savings, salaries, or pensions of French residents. Marco polo (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want to pursue this topic further, you'll find references at the foot of our article on Otto von Stülpnagel. Marco polo (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Assassination of Abraham Lincoln

I have seen a documentary film shortly ago, about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. It mentioned a detail I did not know, that the assassination was actually a scheme to kill the president, the vicepresident and the secretary of state all at the same time, to make the US fall into anarchy. Fortunately, although Booth was successful, the others were not, and the plan never achieved its real purpose.

But that raises a question: what would have actually happened in such a situation, if all the people in the presidential line were killed or died at the same time? And what would happen today in such a scenario? Surely during the Cold War and the atomic threat, the chance should have been considered Cambalachero (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

See United States presidential line of succession, Presidential Succession Act, and Designated survivor. Marco polo (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The short answer, in the case of the Lincoln conspiracy, is that the President Pro Tempore of the Senate would have become acting President. As regards the actual conspiracy, I've seen conspiracy theories that claim Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton was actually behind the assassination conspiracy. No definitive proof can be found, of course. But he and his "radical Republican" pals nearly succeeded in eliminating Johnson from office via impeachment, which would have had the same effect as killing him would have... and in practical terms, it did anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

How so, Bugs? Johnson was impeached by the House, but the Senate acquitted him, so he returned to his presidential duties. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but Johnson was denied renomination a month or two later. Although he was so unpopular by then anyway I don't know if it would have made a difference. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Johnson had been rendered politically irrelevant, but he did get one last lick in, by pardoning a lot of Confederates. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Although it wasn't the case for Abraham Lincoln, it's interesting to note that, according to the article Presidential Succession Act there *were* three times in history, summing to about five weeks time total, that assassination of the President would have resulted in there being no clear successor to the office. Note that these were all before the passage of the Presidential Succession Act of 1886, which added the cabinet to the line of succession. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Difference Liberal Party and New Democratic Party

What are the main differences between Liberal Party of Canada and New Democratic Party of Canada, despite being left-wing parties? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.215 (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Do they have lists of issues, or "position papers"? If so, you could start by lining them up and see where, if anywhere, they differ on issues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Our articles have sections on the current positions. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Traditionally, the Liberal Party is not considered a leftist party but a centrist party. That is a significant difference. --Xuxl (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

During the recent election the Globe and Mail put a comparative party platform tool on their website. It's got the main points at least, for those two parties. [[1]] i.m.canadian (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

One BIG difference is that the NDP is now the Official Opposition for the first time ever, with all the perks that entails, after its second place showing in the recent election. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Marx in mainstream economics?

Have any of Marx's theories or writings been accepted by right-of centre economists? 2.97.219.191 (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Much of Marxian theories of understanding economics has been included in mainstream academic curriculums. --Soman (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Show some evidence. Looie496 (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Um... I would not call the typical mainstream academic curriculum "right-of-center" (if anything, academia has a reputation for being left-of-center)... also there is a difference between including a theory in a curriculum (ie discussing it) and accepting it. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think only very sporadically. The mainstream of economics derives from the work of Alfred Marshall, who never read Marx. Marshall himself wasn't on the right though; he supported the co-operative movement. If you do your own digging, especially into particular topics, you can find many places where mainstream and Marxist economics are consistent. The Worldly Philosophers is a great account of the history of economics that brings out all the similarities and differences between the various schools. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a look at the mainstream economics and heterodox economics articles might help you out. Marxian economics is based heavily around the labour theory of value which has, in mainstream economics given way to marginalism (as the above contribution notes by referencing Alfred Marshall Jabberwalkee (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You can read George Reisman's treatise Capitalism and download it from his website in PDF format for free: http://www.capitalism.net/

Reisman writes from an Austrian/British and laissez faire/libertarian viewpoint and provides in depth critiques of Marx. μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

His article page does not include the words "Marx", Marxism", or "Marxist" and the link above appears to suggest he is anti-marxist. So? 92.24.134.162 (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Shimon Peres

From the article:

Peres was elected to the Knesset in November 1959 and, except for a three-month-long hiatus in early 2006, served continuously until 2007, when he became President.

What happened in early 2006? --Theurgist (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

He left the sixteenth Knesset in January when he switched from the Israeli Labor Party to Kadima. He was elected again in March of that year for the seventeenth Knesset. ^Avic_ennasis @ 23:22, 8 Sivan 5771 / 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. --Theurgist (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin's wife

Is there a bible scholar here who can tell me the name of the wife of Benjamin (son of Jacob)? I can't find it anywhere. Moriori (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

According to our article, the name of his wife/wives are not given in the Bible. Are you looking for answer outside of the Bible? ^Avic_ennasis @ 00:04, 9 Sivan 5771 / 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Aaaaarrrggghhhhh. I read that article too, but didn't see that info. Thanks. Moriori (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There are no extrabiblical sources currently known with that info afaik (by which I mean there is no info on the Patriarchs currently known that exists outside the Tanach/Bible). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

June 11

support vehicle

I saw a picture of the US Airways Flight 1549 support vehicle. It looks nice. But I was wondering what the brand was. Anyone know?24.90.204.234 (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

From the picture in the article, I'd say it's either a Chevy Suburban or Tahoe. Dismas|^(talk) 02:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference between the two?24.90.204.234 (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Check the articles but my cursory check indicates that the Suburban is the long wheelbase version of the Tahoe. Exxolon (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

When will this case be heard?

I suppose there are too many variables to make a guess? [2] 66.108.223.179 (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Such lawsuits rarely go to "trial" in a traditional sense. What usually happens in these cases is that one group or the other gains favor with either lawmakers OR with the regulatory agency in question (in this case the FDA it would appear) and either law or regulation ends up changing to favor one side or the other. --Jayron32 03:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was filed in federal court, and specifically in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in Los Angeles. In the federal courts there is a crisis with judicial vacancies; the Senate takes much longer than has been traditionally standard to confirm the President's judicial nominees, and the result is that as seats become vacant and judges go on senior status, it takes correspondingly longer for cases to proceed in court, although magistrate judges take up some of the load. So you can count on a long-term backlog in the federal district courts, and probably in this particular California federal district.

As to when it will actually proceed to trial - it might not. There might be a settlement, or the FDA might issue some rule that makes the suit moot. Even if the suit does proceed, there will be pretrial motions to take up (such as a motion to dismiss and motions on venue and jurisdiction), continuances, and so forth. So count on it being many months at the very least. Neutrality^talk 05:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Marriage alliances with Portugal

Was Portugal a very undesirable country to marry with or marry into in the age when royal marriages were used as diplomacy? I mean from my observation Portugal has seen the most spinster and bachelor infantas and infantes in any of the royal families of Europe.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This is by no means my area of expertise, but it occurs to me that for most of its history after the Iberian Union, Portugal was virtually a protectorate of Protestant Britain. As such, it may have had little to offer diplomatically to prospective spouses. Marco polo (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there was Catherine of Braganza... The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The Little Spy starts with an unclear statement "from my observation Portugal has seen the most spinster and bachelor infantas and infantes in any of the royal families of Europe". It may be better to look at Category:Portuguese infantas and Category:Portuguese infantes and to check them one by one. Afterwards one would need to compare the number of spinsters and bachelors of the other royal families of Europe. Only then are we able to pass a wiser judgement. Flamarande (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Robert Kiyosaki

Approximately how rich was Robert Kiyosaki before he sold a single book about how to get rich? 76.27.175.80 (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

(for reference) we have a Robert Kiyosaki article. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 13:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Somalis in Canada

How did Canada receive Somali immigrants in the first despite Canada doesn't have an embassy in that country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.228.20 (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no visit required to a local embassy to immigrate to Canada. Looking at the website for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, it seems you fill out forms and mail them. ^Avic_ennasis @ 16:27, 9 Sivan 5771 / 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that if a country recognises the other country, they will usually have an embassy which covers that country although it may be located in another country. In this particular case, the High Commission of Canada to Kenya covers Somalia [3] although they have no formal diplomatic relations with the Transitional Federal Government (but do have a working relationship) and given the security situation they cannot provide consular assistance to Canadians in Somalia [4].

Also note that even if a country has an embassy in another country, it doesn't mean that embassy processes immigration requests or visas. New Zealand has a High Commission in Kuala Lumpur [5], the Singapore branch of New Zealand immigrant handles visas [6]. (Passports for New Zealand citizens are still dealt with by the HC in Malaysia.) While these can sometimes be handled by post, Malaysia forbids you to send your passport by post so many may not wish to do so in the unlikely event it's lost. (Although some Malaysian high commissions and embassies will send your new passport to you if you take full responsibility rather then require you to visit in person.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Most Somalis in Canada have come as refugees. The process for admission is quite different than for independent immigrants. Cases are usually refered to Canadian authorities by the UNHCR and are often interviewed either in refugee camps or in some other third country location. Before the disintegration of Somalia, immigration, would proceed through a nearby Canadian Embassy or High Commission, as is the case for other countries that do not have a resident Embassy; I doubt that there have been many "regular" immigrants since anarchy took hold in the early 1990s, though. --Xuxl (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking for b/w photo

Reposting after suggestion from entertainment desk. I'm looking for a photo I saw once in a book. It was black and white and featured a woman wearing a wedding dress standing in a forest beside a big oak (or similar) tree. I think the name of the photo was something similar to "beauty and the beast in the dark woods". I'm sure it was a famous photographer, potentially a nz photographer - I saw it in a book in a school photography class. Not much to go on, but I'd appreciate if anyone has any ideas. Thanks! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Photos of non-'rectangular'-star-pattern United States Flags?

The wikipedia page on the History of the Flag of the United States shows many unusual patterns for the stars. Are there any photos of some of these variants in use? How common were they? --CGPGrey (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is this pic: [7], from the article. It's not a pic of the flags themselves, but rather of an oil painting containing the flags. However, if you edit that pic to make a dozen individual pics of the non-rectangular flags, they should look pretty good. I suspect that many of the original flags, if they still exists, are in poor shape and therefore make for ugly pics. StuRat (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Countries offering citizenship for anyone

I've been wondering (out of interest!) whether there are any countries which offer citizenship with very limited or no requirements, ie. could anyone apply for it even if they have no ties with the country? ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 20:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Not citizenship, but visa-free residence: there is no visa requirement to live on Svalbard (ref). Although this itself not a route to Norwegian citizenship, it seems that the time one spends living on Svalbard does count toward the time requirements for permanent residency in Norway (and later citizenship).(ref). The realities of Svalbardian life, however, seem to mean that few people avail themselves of this. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 20:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Have a link, on me: Svalbard. StuRat (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're Jewish (or wanna convert) you can easily gain citizenship in Israel under the Law of Return. Also, you can join the French Foreign Legion and apply for French citizenship after 3 years of service. And if you're wealthy, a few countries offer "citizenship-by-investment", such as Austria, Cyprus, Dominica and St. Kitts & Nevis. ^Avic_ennasis @ 21:21, 9 Sivan 5771 / 11 June 2011 (UTC)

One that surprises me in not letting just about anybody in is Canada. They have an extremely low population density, even if you discount the portion which is Arctic tundra. You'd think, under those conditions, they would be more welcoming of immigrants than they are. StuRat (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, there is probably room for some more people (although not too many - even in the south of the country, the growing season is very short, limiting the amount of food they can grow) but what would they gain by letting anyone in? They do have an immigration policy that is more open than many - see Immigration to Canada - but you have to bring something worthwhile to the country. If you have a useful skill or you plan to start your own business, then they'll probably let you in. If you are just going to get a job that a Canadian could easily have done or, worse, live on benefits, then why should they let you in? --Tango (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

All things being equal, the larger the population, the larger the economy, which in turn increases that nation's power and influence. And the argument that they will take a job from a Canadian isn't true, as more people create more jobs. After all, they will need more waiters to serve them food, more teachers to teach their kids, more auto mechanics to rip them off when their cars break down, etc. StuRat (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems to me a bit over-simplistic to me. The taxes they might take from that waitresses' $7/hour job, for example, isn't going to add up to the cost of feeding, housing, and medicating me. (Plus, I could not have kids, ride my bike everywhere, and grow my own food in my garden.) ^Avic_ennasis @ 00:48, 10 Sivan 5771 / 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't know about Canada, but in the UK only the richest 40% of the population make a net contribution to the Treasury. The other 60% receive more in benefits, education, healthcare, etc. than they pay in taxes.[8] If an immigrant is going to enter that 40%, then the quality of living of everyone already in the country will be probably increase on average. If they enter the 60%, then it may well decrease. I would expect Canada to be much the same as the UK in that respect. --Tango (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think your source supports your claim. It only talks about income and ignores the effect of indirect taxes (except in stating that taking them into account, overall taxes are close to linear). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Increasing the population would certainly increase the size of the economy, as most of the money spent on the new arrivals would presumably stay in Canada, too. Add to this any new wealth they create or bring with them. It is, however, possible that the new arrivals could bring the GDP per person down, if they make less than current citizens. StuRat (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would China have a One-child policy if increasing the population also grows the economy? ^Avic_ennasis @ 02:34, 10 Sivan 5771 / 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Unlike Canada, their nation is overpopulated, leading to a whole range of environmental, economic, and social problems. And newborns don't grow the economy as quickly as adult immigrants, since they don't work for many years. Also, back then China was far poorer on a per capita basis, so didn't have the money to invest in that many children, as far as education, etc. StuRat (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah. So it's more complicated than I thought. :-) Thanks. ^Avic_ennasis @ 06:44, 10 Sivan 5771 / 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Besides which, in 1978 wasn't China still primarily Communistic? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. StuRat (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

While Canadian politicians might gain more prestige from a nation having the "power and influence" of a large economy, the voters who elect them are probably more concerned with per-capita measures of wealth so it doesn't necessarily follow that it would be desirable. I'm sure most people would rather be rich in unimportant Liechtenstein than poor in powerful China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.166.169 (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

But, even in that case, they should still let in anyone whose income, wealth, and skills are above those of the average Canadian, but they don't. StuRat (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"Reading" people

Good morning neighbours. A frequent problem I have is I have trouble picking out or interpretting non-intentional physical cues, including subtle body language but also those in appearance (for example, a ruffled shirt, unwashed hair, and more subtle that this), that is, I may not think to take notice, or if I do I can't tell what it means. It might be called forensic body reading, I'm not sure. I'm not looking to become House, but it seems that this is a rather useful skill to have that I would like to cultivate. Can anyone recommend any literature written on this topic? thank you. (PS: Oddly enough, friends who are naturally or by profession good at this sort of thing say they rarely can get anything from me, or if they can it is not accurate. weird :) 72.128.95.0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC).

There are no such signs, it is bunkum like astrology. 92.24.181.38 (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. So-called "psychics" doing cold readings use such techniques, as do even less reputable people, like salesmen. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Here is how you cultivate it. Get to know someone very well, spend hours a day with them, and you will be able to read many of their cues and tell what they are thinking (you will also act a lot like them and they will act like you which helps). It's not psychic or anything, you just get to know someone well. So what you want to do is get to know people much better. Your friends probably don't know you well enough, and your "professional" ones. Well, I'll just be frank. Psychics are full of it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 23:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: this question comes from an IP who abuses the reference desks with frivolous questions on a daily basis. Looie496 (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There are loads of books on the subject. Whether any of them say anything useful, I don't know. See neuro-linguistic programming for one attempt at a rigorous treatment of the subject. I suspect the best way to learn such skills is just by practising, though. Try people watching and try and guess things about the strangers you see. You won't be able to find out if you are right in most cases, but it will get you thinking about such signs. --Tango (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

NLP is just pseudoscience, like astrology. The "Criticism and controversy" section makes up the bulk of the Wikipedia article. 92.24.176.63 (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

...You could just watch a Lie To Me marathon... ^Avic_ennasis @ 00:20, 10 Sivan 5771 / 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Trolls sometimes ask very useful questions. What has been asked here is a subject I studied at degree level, and the ability to "read" people is a distinguishing trait for people with Aspergers syndrome or autistic spectrum disorders. The topic as a whole is called Non-verbal communication. I suggest reading "The Psychology of Interpersonal Behaviour" by Michael Argyle, or "Manwatching" by Desmond Morris, for starters. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the OP was asking about what in poker are called "tells", like people supposedly wriggling their foot or scratching their nose when they are lying. I believe they have been debunked by recent reasearch. I've read Argyles TPOIB, and it covers a much greater range than merely "tells". I don't think it mentions thjem at all, or if so only very briefly, but it is a long time since I read it. 2.101.1.42 (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

People definitely have tells. The standard theories you hear ("If you look and to the left, you are lying. If you look up and the to the right, you are telling the truth." or possibly the other way round) are almost certainly nonsense, but individuals do have tells you can spot. They are different for different people, but they exist. --Tango (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Not true. As I wrote, they have been debunked by recentish research. If you similarly want to believe in astrology, then you will find lots of support from popular newspapers, other believers, and charalatans. 92.24.176.63 (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

People definitely have "body language", and those who know how to recognize it can exploit it. If you think there's no such thing as body language, where do you think the term "poker face" comes from? That's someone who is in control of his body language, or at least is self-aware enough to not let it betray him. And how often have you seen someone fold their arms across their chests when they're feeling vulnerable? Are you going to believe uncited "research", or your own eyes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read the psuedoscience article. You could make similar claims for astrology or lucky charms etc. 92.24.176.63 (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how the Professor Emeritus of Oxford Brookes University would feel about being called a pseudo-scientist? --TammyMoet (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If there is, as you imply, a "professor emeritus" of that place keen on NLP, then it just drops my opinion of it even more. The pseudo-fad used to be semiology, now apparantly its "nlp". 92.24.134.162 (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The late Professor Michael Argyle, to whom I refer, specialised in Non-Verbal Communication, called in some places Interpersonal Psychology. I don't know why you feel the need to bring Neuro-Linguistic Programming into this discussion as it seems to have no relevance. I think you're trolling now. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine why 92.24 is comparing non-verbal communication with astrology - that's not even apples and oranges, more like apples and orangutans. NVC is about observing what people actually do - with their eyes, their face, their arms, their stance, their posture, and the non-verbal parts of the noises they make with their throat - and finding some meaning in it, because there most assuredly is meaning there to be found. There's an old saying, "Actions speak louder than words", which remains true. If there's ever a mismatch between what a person is saying and what their body is doing, e.g. saying "Yes, I agree" but simultaneously shaking their head as if to indicate "No, I disagree", the body language will always be the true indicator of what they're communicating. 92.24 would do well to read up on the life, work and legacy of Milton H. Erickson before they do any more trashing of well-accepted and widely-used studies of human behaviour, based on their ignorance (assumption of good faith leads to that conclusion). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"Neuro-linguistic programming" is psuedo-science, and poker "tells" do not exist. I've never said that the study of non-verbal communication in general is that. Do not confuse the two. (Astrology, not astronomy! Even though they both study stars and planets. Also note that science-fiction and scientology are not proper sub-parts of science, and criticism of the former does not mean that I am criticising the latter). "nlp" was raised by Tango above, and that was what people have apparantly been discussing, although now TammyMoet has suddenly said it isnt. I have not been commenting on non-verbal communication, but only on "nlp" and "tells" which was as far as I could see the subject of this sub-thread. 92.24.183.103 (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please be more specific about what "that" refers to in your question. 92.24.183.103 (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I know very well the difference between astrology and astronomy. Hence my bolding of "actually do", because astronomy is at least a study of what actually is, whereas the astrology you introduced into the conversation is ... well, not that. So please don't lecture me on confusion. Now, about NLP being "psuedo[sic]-science" - where are your citations for that assertion? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

First I'll need to read the article about pseudo-spelling. Body language can be observed and exploited - and often is. Astrology is bogus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to provide a reference for that? I play poker and I can tell you that people definitely have tells. For example, someone might have a habit of talking more when bluffing. If you notice that, you can take advantage of it and win all their chips. --Tango (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The IP seems to be conflating unrelated phenomena. NLP is certainly pseudoscience, but it has to do with influencing someones actions; poker tells, cold reading and body language are deducing someone's intentions by observation. As was said earlier, apples and orangutans. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The best example of a people-reader was sherlock Holmes.

In "A Scandal in Bohemia" Holmes deduces that Watson had got very wet lately and that he had "a most clumsy and careless servant girl." When Watson, in amazement, asks how Holmes knows this, Holmes answers:

It is simplicity itself ... My eyes tell me that on the inside of your left shoe, just where the firelight strikes it, the leather is scored by six almost parallel cuts. Obviously they have been caused by someone who has very carelessly scraped round the edges of the sole in order to remove crusted mud from it. Hence, you see, my double deduction that you had been out in vile weather, and that you had a particularly malignant boot-slitting specimen of the London slavey.

BrainyBabe (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Holmes is a poor model; Watson never says, "Actually, Holmes, I went out after the rain, but there was still plenty of mud." There are always multiple interpretations of Holmes' "deductions" (really inductions, but who's counting?), but because it is fictional, Holmes is usually right. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you always trust what you can see? See http://www.myfacialexpressions.com/.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The World Wide Web has a number of online tests of ability to interpret facial expressions. For example, see the fourth test at http://www.testmybrain.org/. See also http://www.cio.com/article/facial-expressions-test.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

June 12

Baron Hirsh suicide rumors

A New York Times article from May 18, 1896 refutes a rumor that Baron Hirsch committed suicide. Does anyone know where I could find more information about these rumors? Were they ever published anywhere else, not in the form of a refutation? There are obscure references to this rumor in unusual sources, which piqued my curiosity... Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

significant Muslim population in Ontario and Quebec

Besides Toronto and Montreal, is there any other places in Ontario and Quebec that have significant Muslim population? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.148.161 (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "significant"? ... A cluster of 10 Muslim families living in a small town with a total population of 500 would be quite significant in terms of the town... but not that significant in terms of the over all demographics of the Province. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Mississauga, if you consider that separate from Toronto. London, Ontario also has a large Muslim population. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Come on, "significant" probably means, enough to sustain the usual services, establishements, etc, associated with a presence of that group of people. An islamic bank woudl be one example. --188.28.52.18 (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Okay, I meant to say is there any place that the most Muslims in the Ontario and Quebec? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.104.148 (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If you look at List of mosques in Canada, does that give you any help? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

That list is clearly incomplete, as it doesn't list any mosques in Montreal or any other part of Quebec. Hamilton, Ontario seems to have several mosques or Islamic centres. They also exist in Waterloo, Kitchener, Guelph, St. Catharines, Niagara Falls, Ottawa, Windsor, Sarnia, Oshawa, Sudbury, Kingston, Newmarket, and Thunder Bay, in addition to various suburbs of Toronto and the other cities already mentioned. In addition to the Montreal region, there are mosques or Islamic centres in Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivières, and Quebec City in Quebec. Marco polo (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You can add Gatineau to the list of cities in Quebec, as well as all of Montreal's suburbs (Laval, Longueil, etc). With the level of immigration in Canada, any town in Central Canada with 100,000 people or more will receive a inflow of immigrants, of which a significant proportion are muslim; smaller town tend to attract fewer immigrants, unless there is a job boom. It's a bit different in the Prairies and in the Maritimes, where fewer immigrants tend to settle. --Xuxl (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

A sovereign power unilaterally vacating it's sovereignty?

I have an unusual question. Under international law, what are the ramifications of a state unilaterally and de jure (by an act of parliament) abandoning its' jurisdiction over an area of territory?

"Why would a state choose to do such a thing?", you may well ask. Well, this situation most commonly arises when the territory in question contains a pesky minority population seen to threaten the state's demographic balance. The example I have in mind is Umm al-Fahm. It's Israel's second-largest Arab city - and at the edge of Israel's border with the West Bank. Some Israeli politicians have suggested re-drawing Israel's borders so as to exclude it. The residents of Umm al-Fahm have overwhelmingly rejected such a proposal, some calling it "racist". But my question is not about morality - it's about international law.

Obviously, if the residents of the city agreed to seccede or become part of a future Palestine, this would be quite legal. But what if they don't? May a state unilaterally vacate its jurisdiction over a part of its sovereign territory, and its' citizens living there? And what are the ramifications under international law of such a step? Has the issue ever been canvassed in other cases? Eliyohub (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, every state has a responsibility to its citizens unless there's a clear and agreed secession. Recently a member of the British government suggested that if there were to be a referendum on Scottish independence in Scotland, and another one in the rest of Britain, the Scots would vote to stay and the rest of us would vote to boot them out. But that would obviously raise some huge human rights issues etc. if it turned out to be true! ╟─TreasuryTag►fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale─╢ 19:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

While that is a noble idea, really a state has the power to do what it wants, despite the will of the people. ^Avic_ennasis @ 20:13, 10 Sivan 5771 / 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Other countries can take action against them, though. --Tango (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Our article Terra nullius may be a good read for this. ^Avic_ennasis @ 20:13, 10 Sivan 5771 / 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not strictly about territory, but rules about stateless persons would be relevant. For example, Israel has signed (although not ratified) the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness which includes a provision about not taking away someone's citizenship if that would leave them stateless. If Israel tried to remove the citizenship of residents of Umm al-Fahm, there would probably be widespread condemnation from other countries. If they renounce sovereignty over the city while keeping the residents as citizens, then they would need to provide protection to those residents or give them a chance to re-locate or something. Not doing so would result in the same condemnation as taking away their citizenship. --Tango (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, in the Scottish example, Scotland already has its own government, laws &c and a functional economy so I doubt there would be substantial "human rights" objections (the ECHR doesn't actually focus on nationality and statehood much, although one of the protocols could be interesting).

In the Israeli example, I'm puzzled why the government of Israel would invest so much effort in controlling arab-populated areas only to decide that having lots of arabs around is demographically unpalatable. Setting that city adrift could set some rather unfortunate precedents for Israel.

Usually it's the other way round; a part of a country wishes to secede but the "national" government doesn't want to let go. bobrayner (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

As to providing "protection" for its citizens, how can one do so after one no longer rules or controls the area? Would it be sufficient for Israel to ensure an orderly transfer of security responsibilities (either to a local force, or U.N. peacekeepers)?

As to statelessness, Israel's rsponse would no doubt be to say "the city's residents have the option of declaring statehood (i.e. become a city state with the residents as its citizens)". If they refuse to do so, their statelessness is self-imposed". Would this argument hold any water? Eliyohub (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Jordan renounced its claims to the West Bank in 1988. At the time, the West Bank had been under Israeli control for 19 years, but I don't know what it meant for the citizenship of the Palestinians living there from then until the formation of the Palestinian Authority. Egypt renounced its claims to the Gaza Strip in 1979. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but something a bit like this happened in the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Belavezha Accords signed by Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus (but not the other SSRs) dissolved the union before the republics officially seceeded in the Alma-Ata Protocol two weeks later. So during those two weeks, the republics were vacated by the union without having declared themselves independent. (Though this was more or less a technicality- it was already clear that they would become independent.) Staecker (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the return of Macau and Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty might be other cases. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sealand might be an example. 92.24.183.103 (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Spain's abandonment of the Spanish Sahara might be a good example. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

(from the OP) The situation I'm describing - isn't that exactly what happened with Singapore? Unilaterally expelled from of the Malaysian federation? (for the same exact reason - it contained an inconvenient ethnic minority). Was there any discussion at the time re the legality of Malaysia's move in disowning its' territory and citizens? Eliyohub (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Novels about Canadian inuit

Can anyone name any novels about Canadian Inuit that are by Canadian Inuit authors? Or can anyone name any novels about Natives in Alaska? I don't want children's' books. Young adult or Teen novel and Memoirs or autobiographies are fine. Neptunekh2 (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Make Prayers to the Raven is an ethnography on the Koyukon in Alaska, and a very facscinating read (if you are interested in the academic side of things). I can't think of the author and I don't have the book at this location, unfortunately. Falconus^{p t c} 05:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit: if you look at the article on the Koyukon that I linked to, you will find that Make Prayers to the Raven is cited as a source, and the author is Richard Nelson. Also mentioned in the article is a Koyukon author, but I am not familiar with her or any of her works. Falconus^{p t c} 05:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hasn't this question been asked recently? Twice, possibly? Adam Bishop (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Aha, in fact it was asked twice in April, here and here. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone name of any notable LGBT Inuit or Native Alaskan people?

Can anyone name of any notable LGBT Inuit or Native Alaskan people? Neptunekh2 (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Looked for a list and couldn't find it. Check out this interesting origin myth though. There is also a wee list here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 22:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

LGBT is a bizarre recent Western social construct, not a universal human category. There are plenty of stories of transgender issues in Shamanism and among Native Siberians and Native Americans. See, for instance, berdache. Don't limit yourself to the categories "gay" and "lesbian" when researching this. Search google books and google scholar using the terms homosexual and transvestite in order to find a wider and deeper perspective not necessarily governed by political concerns. μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Status of the princesses of Japan

In the article Emperor of Japan, there a lot of information about the marriage of emperors and crown princes, and about which brides were considered to be suitable for them to marry, but I can find no information about the Imperial princesses (nor about the younger princes not being heirs to the throne either, but that is a different matter), and I am curious to find that out. Which status did the Japanese princesses have? did they have any role to play in the court? Where they secluded, or allowed to meet men? Did they marry, or where they expected not to? If they did, which partners where considered suitable for them? Only relatives? Did they keep their status as royals after marriage to a non-royal man? Perhaps it is different depending on which time period: I am very curious about the early modern age. Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

See Imperial House of Japan, Imperial Household Law, and this. Oda Mari (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but this seem to be information of the current situation; my question was rather about the princesses before 1867. --Aciram (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The case of Princess Kazu is interesting in this regard. Normally, imperial princesses were married to high members of the kuge (or aristocratic) class. Apparently, however, they were occasionally married to a shogun. Marco polo (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I will reed the article. It sounds logicall that they where married to kuge. But did they keep their royal status after marriage? Did they have a place in court ceremonies? Did they live secluded? --Aciram (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Unlike today, it seems that they could keep their royal status after marriage before Meiji period. I found a ja article. The machine translation is here. Princesses in Japan are categorized in three types. Sisters, daughters, daughters-in-low and granddaughters of the Emperor are called naishin'nō (translation), wives of the Emperor's sons, brothers, uncles, and male cousins are called Shin'nōhi (translation), nieces of the emperor, there are none at the present though, and daughters of the Emperor's male cousins and uncles are called jo'ō (translation). Oda Mari (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

June 13

iParty with Victorious Premiere

Hi, last weekend on saturday june 4th was the Prmiere of the crossover iParty with Victorious. Did someone visit it and took some pictures of the Nickelodeon stars? If yes I would be very greatfull if this person upload some photos of the premiere on wikicommons. Thanks for any help. --Simon.hess (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Aristotle on proving that which is more certain by that which is less certain

If I remember correctly, at some point Aristotle defines as foolishness the desire to prove the truth of that which is "more certain" (prior?) by that which is "less certain" (consequent?). Can someone provide the quote? I am thinking either Metaphysics or Posterior Analytics, but it might be Sophistical Refutations. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it this, from Aristotle's Physics Book 2, chapter 1?

What nature is, then, and the meaning of the terms 'by nature' and 'according to nature', has been stated. That nature exists, it would be absurd to try to prove; for it is obvious that there are many things of this kind, and to prove what is obvious by what is not is the mark of a man who is unable to distinguish what is self-evident from what is not. (This state of mind is clearly possible. A man blind from birth might reason about colours.) Presumably therefore such persons must be talking about words without any thought to correspond.

--Antiquary (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Utilitarianism

Please provide some online resources which criticize utilitarianism from a strict philosophical (ethical) standpoint. --999Zot (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you read Utilitarianism#Criticism and defense? Gabbe (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Brooke Shields touching the heart of Henry IV of France

In the episode of Who Do You Think You Are? (U.S. TV series) Brooke Shields touched the heart of Henry IV of France at Saint Denis. I have many questions. Did the heart even last this long, over 400 years? Why would she touch it? Wouldn't the French and the people in charge of the museum/church be angry at her for touching it? Wouldn't it cause a great scandal? I mean it was an outrage when Abigail Kawananankoa sat on the royal throne of Hawaii, this instance is a heart not a chair!--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

A quasi-religious relic. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If we don't have an article on the hearts of the Kings of France, we probably should. In the meantime, you may find this .pdf interesting. It is a general article on the disposition of the hearts of the kings of France, but does specifically mention Henry IV's. As for why touch it - she's a descendant and probably thought it was a cool idea to be able to touch your gggg(etc)grandfather's heart, and the people of France would hardly mind as the nation is no longer a monarchy and monarchical symbols have lost their power. - Nunh-huh 07:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen the episode. I have to say: even though she exclaims "I've just touched Henry IV's heart", it looks as if she's merely rubbing her fingers on the top of the urn containing the heart, rather than touching the actual heart itself. Gabbe (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

See reliquary. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The heart of Henry IV of France was in the church St Louis located in the Prytanée National Militaire (town of La Flèche): "upon the death of Henry IV, a vast church was built, in which the hearts of Henry IV and his wife queen Marie de Medicis were enshrined." The hearts were burnt in 1793 during the French Revolution, but the ashes were collected by an inhabitant of La Flèche. The (hearted shape) urn is still in the chapel of the Prytanée (in a high place, out of reach of visitors). (Refer to the French Wiki page). One can see the urn in the upper left corner of this picture, and a closer view here. — AldoSyrt (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Utilitarian view on torture

What is the utilitarian view on torture? For example, is the torture of the few terror-suspects justified from a utilitarian standpoint? --999Zot (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Utilitarianism argues for the "greatest good" for the maximum number of people. Torture of a few terror-suspects are usually justified with the argument that it is necessary to save the lives of a lot of people. Is not it a utilitarian argument? --999Zot (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Peter Singer, a philosopher in the utilitarian tradition, has defended torture under certain circumstances, see [9]. See also the articles "Ethical arguments regarding torture" and "Ticking time bomb scenario" for some more info. Gabbe (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• It's a utilitarian argument, but it's wrong. The "ticking bomb" scenario has been heavily criticised as unrealistic. If I can use arbitrarily contrived situations, I can generate justifications for killing of half the population of the globe (minus one), or even all but the one perfect couple that will repopulate the globe with their perfect children, leading to untold future generations of bliss. In real life, you never know if your suspect really has the information. Moreover, information obtained under torture is inherently unreliable - in the short term, the victim can mislead, and in the long term he or she can be made to say anything, hence you will have a bad case of confirmation bias. In either case, you are likely to waste time following wrong clues, and to seriously alienate the "collateral damage" and its friends and relatives. Further, of course, there is the backlash. Torture some POWs, and 15 years later, John Rambo will take apart your country. More realistically, I'd strongly suspect that e.g. Noam Chomsky, or I, would not help appreciate terror suspects if we knew they would be mistreated. Thus, you erode support for law enforcement in your country. And lastly, there is the effect on the torturers. You are breeding a crop of psychopaths who think everything is justified to make things go their way. As for the moral dimension, our courts have serious issues with convicting innocent people even after a lengthy legal process. How many of your mere suspects will be innocent? How will your "enhanced interrogation personell" deal with the fact that maybe a third of the victims they pushed cattle prods into scrotums and vaginas of will turn out to be completely harmless people subject to a mixup? How will the responsible politicians? Would you want to vote for someone responsible for not one, but many such cases? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "help appreciate terror suspects"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Mostly passing on information, e.g. calling the police when I think I've seen a suspect. Or, in my case, help build computer systems for tracking suspects. Voting for parties running on a stricter security policy. Motivating a policeman by telling him that he's doing a good job instead of spitting at him. There are many possibilities, although each in particular is unlikely to come up for any given person. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The argument of erosion of legal rights for the individual would, I think, be applicable to utilitarians as well; if the practice of torture is made legal by law under some specified circumstances, then it greatly increases the possibility that it will be made legal under other circumstances as well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, utilitarians will disagree with each other. But it cannot be denied that "utilitarian" arguments in favour of torture and other intuitively repugnant practices can be and have been made, though more often, I suppose, by opponents of utilitarianism. And it is a basic problem in utilitarianism, how to combine some kind of individual dignity with measurements of aggregate "good".

At any rate, one should note that justifying torture with the "ticking bomb" scenario is not necessarily a utilitarian argument, since the bad guy to be tortured is typically assumed to be "guilty", to have forfeited their rights by their own actions. The usual utilitarian or vulgar-utilitarian calculus of one victim versus many victims is unnecessary – Dirty Harry tortured one bad guy to save one victim and the audience cheered him just as loudly as they do Jack Bauer. Which suggests the whole point is justified blood-lust and revenge fantasy, the victims being mainly a prop. (BTW, in Terrence Malick's early version of the Dirty Harry script, the bad guy was himself a Punisher-type vigilante, but that potentially fantasy-spoiling twist didn't make it into the movie.)

As for Singer, if you read that article carefully you will notice he does not directly make an argument for torture there. Singer just says what many others have said: The rules should unequivocally ban torture, but one can imagine circumstances where anybody would decide to torture the prisoner, no matter what the rules say. If it worked, they'd be a hero; if it didn't, they might be punished for trying. There is a tragic dimension there.

À propos authors: Sam Harris is one author who, while not advocating torture, has noted the human tendency to overvalue the needs of a physically present individual ("neighbour", in Christian terms) in comparison to those of more numerous but absent individuals. Harris compares it to an optical illusion and suggests we need to develop objective measuring instruments, as it were.--Rallette (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the moral questions, it is often argued that the tortured will tell their captors what they want to hear, whether it's true or not. The news stories around the taking-down of Osama bin Laden, the biggest post-9/11 target, indicated that the information of his whereabouts was obtained through normal investigation rather than through torture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the utilitarian viewpoint is probably more lenient to do with torture than, say, deontological systems. It is possible, in any utilitarian decision that the "price" is reached for a given situation. Some, such as Mr Schulz, above, clearly put such a high value on not torturing people, having a world without torture, etc. that this requirement is never met. But logically, the decision is there. If we believed "torture was objectively wrong" and took it as some sort of universal categorical imperative, we wouldn't need this discussion. Torture is, too, an imperfect knowledge system. One is unlikely to be aware of the consequences of ones actions in doing it. This complicated matters considerably, since one could say that the outcomes one is aware of would be a net positive, whilst accepting that there could be further negative consequences (the information being wrong, as Bugs mentions), and thus not torturing someone. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Utilitarianism doen't specifically permit torture, but nor does it ban it - utilitarianism is about outcomes rather than actions, so an action, such as torture, isn't the focus of the debate. If it can be shown that torturing someone will result in more good than bad (noting that there is a lot of debate about what constitutes good: for example, Peter Singer is a preference utilitarian, so "good" with his approach is the meeting of preferences), then the approach would permit torture. With utilitarianism, you don't necessarily ask "is <this action> wrong?" so much as "how much good will result from <this action>?".

The problem is that working out whether there is more good than bad is tricky. For example, one instance where someone was tortured might bring about more good, but it also might create a devaluing of life, causing issues in society, that would then in the long term bring about more bad than good. Or, as Baseball Bugs pointed out, the effectiveness might actually be low, so while someone might perceive it to be a net benefit in terms of good, the reality might be far from that. And it should be noted that the person being tortured has preferences (such as not being tortured), as do his or her family, and many other people - thus it might be the case that more preferences (if you use that approach) are met by not torturing the person. One of the arguments against utilitarianism is that these sorts of sums are virtually impossible to calculate, and long term effects hard to predict. - Bilby (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The OP's question arose only because someone thinks its answer might be yes, torture is justifiable. Consider the natural consequences of that affirmative answer. It makes torture methods a legitimate subject for training, exercising, examinations, demonstrations and seminars. Sooner or later there will be a "Torture for Dummies" book and torture tutorial clips on YouTube. Torture experts will offer consulting services. We can have torture competitions. A Miss Torture pageant is sure to be popular and a coming TV hit might be "America's Funniest Tortures". The Fisher-Price Little Torturer toy will be on sale in Toys "R" Us in time for next Christmas. Catholicism will enjoy a resurgence with publication of popular editions of Ad extirpanda and Malleus Maleficarum, with broadcasts of Auto-da-fés from the Vatican. The Wikibook on Torture will need attention from an expert. The OP may consider Mathew 7:7 "Ask, and Ye Shall Receive". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite an overdrawn set of consequences. Many people have argued in favour of torture, and I'm yet to see the videos on YouTube. Since a "war" is the murder of people, except justified, and people don't go around murdering people all the time, I call your bluff on your slippery slope. That's not to say I am in favour of torture, of course. But it's happened, and there have been proponents of it, more American than British. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"except justified" . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

We certainly have videos and "war experts". We have paintball and shooting competitions. The Russian army recently had the Miss Russian Army pageant. We have action figures and other military toys, from a plastic AK-47 to a model M1A1. The analogy is not that far fetched... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You're merely "cutting" the slippery slope at a different point: we have these things, and yet no explosion in murders (certainly, it mostly correlates with other factors). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's no bluff Grandiose. See U.S. Army and CIA interrogation manuals. Torture was taught by CIA. From the CIA 1963 torture manual: "people who are exposed to coercive procedures will talk and usually reveal some information...The following are the principal coercive techniques of interrogation: arrest, detention, deprivation of sensory stimuli through solitary confinement or similar methods, threats and fear, debility, pain,...most people underestimate their capacity to withstand pain." On YouTube watch Is this torture?, Torture room, Stretch torture and kindly catholics (videos). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

What you should know about utilitarianism. The utilitarianists pretend that they are able to think through the utility of actions - in fact, nobody can. God alone can see the world in which torture is accepted by all society under certain specific conditions, and God alone can see the world in which it is in total disuse. As for utility at points between these extremes: God alone... --188.28.126.160 (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

One important part of this question that needs to be addressed is what version of utilitarianism you are talking about. The strictest version of Utilitarianism would say that torture is a moral imperative any time that it makes more people happy than are made unhappy. The trick is measuring, as always. A strict Utilitarian of the most early primitive forms would say that if more people are made happy by publicly torturing certain kinds of criminals than the criminal is made unhappy then it is a moral IMPERATIVE to torture them. Rule utilitarianism might have an issue with that because "torture convicted criminals" is actually a version of the rule/maxim "impose societal norms using brutal force". HominidMachinae (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A question about copyright?

Let's say you want to request permission to copy a book, however all of the authors have died, the publishers closed down and it is not clear as to who currently owns the rights to the book. How do you ask permission in this case? 112.210.183.211 (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

See, for a start, Orphan works and Orphan works in the United States.--Rallette (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That's called an orphan work and different countries have different rules regarding them. That article should give you some useful information. --Tango (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Is that how Mad secured the rights to Alfred E. Neuman? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

We can't answer questions about the legality, and in any case the law will vary from one country to another. But in the UK it is quite common for the person copying the material to add a disclaimer along the lines of "Every effort has been made to trace copyright in the following, but if any omission has been made please let us know in order that this may be acknowledged in any future edition."--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I read the article on orphan works and it didn't answer my question, which is how to seek permission to use orphaned works. How do you do so? 112.210.183.211 (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Professional publishing companies employ specialists (usually consultancies) who are experts in ferreting out who owns the copyright for a given work. Such people have extensive knowledge of the histories of given publishers (who bought who, who went out of business and sold their IP assets to whom) and lots of contacts in publishing and academia. If these people fail to track down who owns a given work, a professional publisher would most likely not publish at all (they even use these people to track down the ownership of relatively small sections of text, for use in things like anthologies). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 18:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright holders are not required to give their contact information. You copy at your own legal peril. Currently, a work enjoys copyright protection in the US for a period of the life of the author plus 70 years after his or her death. In the case of anonymously published works, copyright is valid for 90 years from publication. Provided a copyright holder did not assign his or her reproduction rights over to a third party, these would pass through the author's estate to his or her heirs. If the rights were assigned to a publishing company and that company became defunct, rights would be held by creditors of that company and possibly sold to another. You could expect damages for illegal copyright at several thousand dollars for each copy. There is no legal status of an "orphaned work." It isn't recognized by the law. If a copyright holder wishes to remain anonymous and only reveal him or herself after a lawsuit is filed, the law permits it. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Courts in most countries will be very reluctant to award "several thousand dollars" if the author can demonstrate a good-faith effort to locate the copyright holders and get their permission. They are much more likely to award reasonable value (cents per copy in the case of, say, a page in a book or so). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone point me to any high-profile lawsuits over the use of presumed "orphan" intellectual property which actually did turn out to have owners, who then sued? Has it ever happened? Eliyohub (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Legit Libyan rebels?

What makes the Libyan rebels the legitimate interlocutor of the Libyan people? Quest09 (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a matter of opinion, of course, but see legitimacy (political). The idea been connected to the idea of consent of the governed since the Enlightenment, but other bases for legitimacy have also historically been held. In Libya, the nations who have granted diplomatic recognition to the National Transitional Council have stated that the Council best represents the Libyan people's goals and democratic aspirations, or something similar. Neutrality^talk 15:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

They're not necessarily "legitimate interlocutors", but if they're trying to prevent the dictatorship oppress much of the population, that's fine by me, and Libyans will surely tidy up some constitutional loose ends later. Let's not pretend that the Gaddafi regime is more legitimate. bobrayner (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• At the end of the day, they assert that they are a state and they attempt to enforce their views upon other claimants. Other forms of legitimacy are dependent upon the balance of forces within a hegemonic culture (for example: parliamentary democracy). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Così fan tutte

Mozart's Così fan tutte contains themes such that, if it were published today, it would be considered sexist. However it is never a good idea to apply modern labels and ideas such as sexist to a time period when the social mores were drastically different, which is why I want to know, how would Mozart's contemporary female spectators/audience members have reacted to this opera? And would his male spectators have seen it as humorously accurate, or humorous but exaggerated? Regards :) 72.128.95.0 (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That is, by the way, not the only such opera of Mozart. You could say the same of Die Zauberflöte. – b_jonas 17:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This is where the librettist comes into his own, because Mozart "only" wrote the music. The people responsible for the stories and the words and whatever sexism was there, were Lorenzo Da Ponte (Così fan tutte) and Emanuel Schikaneder (The Magic Flute). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. However, may I respectfully point out that the question has not yet been answered. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a loophole in Jante Law?

Summarizing Jante Law: We are so equal that you may not do any better than us.

A rather puzzling one. In the Scandinavian culture were the Tall poppy syndrome soars, I have a few counteracting ideas – though not sure if it may work.

For the religious (though Scandinavia isn’t well known for it’s religiousness), one could have argued that the followers of a religion must try to excel in everything they do as a way of thanking God. Which would have been a good counterculture point; alas only before the 1940s.

For atheists, it’s a bit tougher. I have given it some thought – how about patriotism?
“I’m not doing it for myself, I’m doing it for “charity”/“our group”/ “company” / (insert Nordic Country name)”.
In some Nordic countries where everyone gets a piece of the pie (they’re much more group-orientated than the American individualistic approach), the bigger the pie… I mean, it’s for their own benefit! Give the ambitious guy a break, man!

Could it work? Any other ideas?
Like to hear from you.
PS. Oh, regard emigration as not part of the solution.
41.247.34.131 (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head with the individual versus group mentality. A talented individual may either choose to rise to the top, or help everybody else rise. The same skills can be applied either way. Thus, the Jante Law becomes an indictment of the selfishness of the individual, for not choosing to devote their talents to helping others, but rather engaging in selfish pursuits. StuRat (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

In Australia the Tall Poppy is one who serves themselves and does well, instead of serving others and doing well. The Tall Poppy is also one who draws attention to personal success and publicly revels in it. Someone who achieves success working for the group (Bob Hawke, ACTU Leader) is often perceived differently from someone who achieves success where it appears to be for themselves (Bob Hawke, Prime Minister). I'm sure you're aware that Tall Poppy / Jante Law arises in circumstances where the material circumstances of being fairly heavily emphasise collective production; but, where there's a generally shared standard of social living. Living outside the standard becomes a case of beggar my neighbour little tolerated by people who see themselves as peers (and have the social capacity to lop the heads off of Tall Poppies). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

As You Like It

Here's an extract from Shakespeare's wikisource:As You Like It/Act II.

ROSALIND. Alas, poor shepherd! searching of thy wound, I have by hard adventure found mine own.

TOUCHSTONE. And I mine. I remember, when I was in love, I broke my sword upon a stone, and bid him take that for coming a-night to Jane Smile: and I remember the kissing of her batlet, and the cow's dugs that her pretty chapp'd hands had milk'd: and I remember the wooing of a peascod instead of her; from whom I took two cods, and giving her them again, said with weeping tears, 'Wear these for my sake.' We that are true lovers run into strange capers; but as all is mortal in nature, so is all nature in love mortal in folly.

Various annotated texts are available that explain what Touchstone is talking about: the meaning of "batlet" and his encounter with the pea-plant, the folly of love, and so on. But despite lots of searching I've yet to find an explanation of the part in italics, perhaps because the language used in it is already comprehensible to a modern reader. Yet its meaning is completely unclear to me, perhaps because I'm missing a cultural reference. Why, being in love, would he break his sword upon a stone, and how would that help him see his girl? And who is the "him" in "bid him take that"? [It looks anaphoric but doesn't seem to refer to anybody in the preceding lines that I haven't shown in this extract.] It's Question Time (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, breaking a sword is typically symbolic of quitting a fight. Since Touchstone threatened William the shepherd, could that be the fight he was claiming he quit ? StuRat (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

But William and Touchstone were vying for the affection of Audrey; this passage seems to be about Touchstone's earlier dalliance with "Jane Smile". (Some sources say that "Jane Smile" is actually a generic name for a woman, should it be read as "Jane Doe" and refers to Audrey?) It's Question Time (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I take it to mean a generic woman, or perhaps a generic friendly woman, and, in this case, Audrey. StuRat (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You may well be aware of this, but in the German translation, Touchstone is translated literally as Probstein, wheres Jane Smile is more figuratively "Hannchen Freundlich" - so yes, "generically friendly woman" makes a lot of sense. However, he can't be referring to quitting the fight with William the shepherd over Audrey, because that doesn't happen until Scene I of wikisource:As You Like It/Act V? In fact Audrey doesn't appear in the text at all until Scene III of wikisource:As You Like It/Act III. It's Question Time (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that settles it then. An appeal to the German original :) 188.28.126.160 (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It could be the idea of an offering to the gods so that they will look kindly on him and grant him his wish. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a fairly direct sexual allegory going on here. Shakespeare was writing for an educated audience of men restricted from marriage and legitimate sexual conduct. Rosalind searches "her wound" which is both the heart and the vulva. Touchstone is obviously describing a jealousy of every day objects: breaking the sword upon the stone is an act of relinquishing combat, but also a phallic image. Jane Smile relates obviously to Jane Doe, and smile has a meaning relating to comeliness and beckoning. It is also a plain reference to the vagina. See also the "dugs" of the cow instead of the breasts of the lover. Peas in the pod are usually a reflection on the clitoris, but "cod" has an archaic meaning of bag or of scrotum. I think the passage is a triple: a discussion on the wounds of love, a discussion of silly relations with material objects for the sake of love (kissing a beating bat, or a piece of clothing), and a discussion of casual sex with "Jane Smile" (think "Jane Easy"). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Touchstone is describing an imaginary fight, in which he pretended that a stone was his rival for the affection of a milkmaid named Jane Smile. He hit his supposed rival (in reality, the stone) so hard that his sword broke. John M Baker (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This makes sense. By implication, Jane had sat on the stone at night. Marco polo (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the first proposed explanation here that seems to explain what the "him" refers to - i.e. he bids the stone "take that". (StuRat proposed "him" to be William, but that does not make sense in the context of the play.) It's Question Time (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with the marines training slogan "this is your weapon, that is your gun?" In this case 'sword' means penis - he thumps himself in the testicles (known both as stones and cods) and bids his willy 'take that!" for "coming a-night" (come on chaps - you were all young once, and your mum must have washed a lot of sheets in her time). Billy Waggledagger was playing to the cheap seats here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So in this explanation, "him" refers to his "sword"? It's Question Time (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oldest son of King Abdullah

We currently have at least two people's article both claiming to be the eldest son of Abdullah of Saudi Arabia: Mutaib bin Abdullah and Khaled bin Abdullah. Abdullah's article mentions four wives and seven sons but doesn't name them. Khaled's article incorrectly claimed that he died (from a recent press mistake over his cousin's death) and that he was passed over for next in line for the throne for Mutaib which is a misunderstanding as well. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Since "Saudi state media" reported that Khaled was the eldest son, I'd go with him, even though they also stated he had died (obviously he got better). I see only one rather dubious ghit for Mutaib being the eldest. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure Saudi state media was at fault? The source used in our article is the AP [10]. While some of the original sources report his death as coming from state media, it's obviously possible state media correctly reported who died and other news agencies picked up the wrong guy as having died. I haven't yet been able to find a source which says state media made the mistake although I don't speak Arabic. Nil Einne (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Some background: The erroneous reports appear to date 11 and 12 June with the correction dating 12 June. Anyway after quite a bit of searching I finally found (most of the English sources from Saudi Arabia don't seem to have bothered with the death) an English language Saudi source [11] which claims to be dated 10 June and updated 10 June (although media organisations are sometimes crap or lie about that sort of thing) and appears to report the correct person. (Some later searching also finds this Arabia MSN site provide by Gulf in the media and which is dated 11 June also says more or less the same thing.) It calls him a prince, I guess this is correct although I don't know for sure.

Interesting enough all sources including those talking about the guy that died as the son say he was 54. After the erroneous death reports, a birth date of 1957 was added to our article. But another source which was added after the death, a book from when Abdullah was still crown prince says he was born in 1950 (and also says he's the eldest son). This strongly suggests the one who died was 54 but the son who didn't die is not (and if the AP had checked their facts like the age they would have realised something was wrong).

P.S. Mildly interesting Princess Munira bint Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al Saud daughter of crown prince Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud also died recently [12]. Came across this because I found a bunch of condolences [13] [14] although I later found one for Khaled as well [15]

Nil Einne (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

June 14

George Washington and cost being a factor

The Newt mentioned something in this hilarious debate about GW saying cost was a factor in war. I can't find it on Wikiquote. Could someone find it if it exists, or confirm that it doesn't exist before a Gengrich-supporter makes one up? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd have thought that it would be difficult to find a reliable source for a statement that George Washington didn't say something on the subject. One good reason why verifiability is important. Let the Newtophiles (Newtologists?) show that he did... (BTW, for the benefit of those who don't follow the Newt, what 'hilarious debate' are you referring to?)

He must have gotten the quote from somewhere in the Mediawiki project is my reasoning. Ah yes, because that worked out so well with the Palinites. =p Why, Lulzstock 2011, AKA the Republican Debate of course. It was pretty funny but my dad and I were wondering if there was a quote from somewhere about it. Let's be honest, where else do most of these politicos get their info from? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Are all people who are of Jewish descent descended from Israelites?

Are all people who are of Jewish descent descended from Israelites? And how did people change skin color from dark skin people in the middle east to modern day Jewish White Americans? Neptunekh2 (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

For the most part we are. Though it's not so much the Israelites (except those that fled from the destruction of Israel) as the Judahites we are descended from. There is some article about our genetics somewhere, but I am too lazy to retrieve it. Most of those Jewish White Americans came from Europe. Not really sure on that skin colour one as there was not much mixing between Jews and goyim really - both as a result of the Jewish marriage laws and the fact that many Christians wouldn't marry a Jew. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

People in the Middle East aren't really all that dark-skinned as a whole. No more so than Greeks or Italians. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that too. You know we are apparently most closely related (when talking abou Europeans) to Tuscans and Greeks. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

One factor on the skin color is simply tanning. That is, people in the Middle East get more Sun exposure and thus have darker tans, all things being equal. StuRat (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say tanning is the major factor for the darker appearance of most near-easterners in practice. Check images at Saddam Hussein, Massoud Barzani, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Ali Khamenei, Ruhollah Khomeini, Bashar al-Assad, Michel Suleiman. Those skin colours would not look out of place in most European cities. However, skin pigmentation is also one of the properties that reacts quickly to evolutionary pressures. The migration out of Africa, when we presumably were all rather dark, is only ~70000 years ago. Pigmentation is controlled by a number of different genes, hence selection in current diverse populations can operate on existing alleles - we don't need to re-evolve darker or lighter skin from scratch with new mutations. This paper argues that skin coloration in humans is highly adaptive, that some populations probably have gone through alternating periods of depigmentation and pigmentation, and that populations that have stayed in place 10000-20000 years are already optimally adapted to their local UV regime. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the tanning thing...

• On a relationship-by-relationship basis, intermarriage may be infrequent, but for much of history, rules against mingling would have been hard to enforce, when neither the state nor religious authorities had much knowledge of, or control over, the actions of random villagers. (The atrocities of the 20th century were enabled by extensive government powers, and big piles of data, which previous governments would have been unable to mobilise). Even the local priest, probably himself a local man, maybe only separated from illiteracy by one generation, might have been a bit... syncretic, shall we say. So, over a hundred generations, there's bound to have been some cumulative effect of mingling. Pure blood would be very difficult to maintain in the long term unless the population is isolated on a remote island.
• There could even be outright deceit to obtain the benefits of being in a different religious/ethnic community (different taxes, access to shared resources, or a restricted profession, exemption from conscription &c). For instance, in the Ottoman empire, different taxation of different raya led to some people lying about their religion; one highly privileged group ended up having to use certificates to prove their ancestry, but then a problem of forged certificates emerged... any one ancestor would have been unlikely to lie this way, but the cumulative effect over a long history could be quite significant. bobrayner (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The answer to the first question posed at the top of the thread is no. Anyone can convert to Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. See Ruth... and thereby King David... and thereby Moshiach. All direct descendants of the brilliantly-named Eglon, King of Moab. --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say there is a high probability that everyone (of whatever ethnic background) is descended from the Israelites (or to put it more accurately... everyone has at least one Israelite in their ancestry). Its a simple matter of genetics... people interbreeding over generations and generations. Blueboar (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I agree. If you define "descended from" as "has at least one ancestor among", then it is not impossible. The Middle East always was a crossroads, and with Alexander and the Crusaders invading from the Northwest, the Egyptians from the South, Romans from the West, Persians from the Northeast, Arabs from the East, and Mongols from the Far East, not to mention the Phoenicians colonizing throughout the Mediterranean, the region has certainly spread its genes widely across the globe. How many pure-blooded Australian Aborigines or Amazon Indians have converted to Judaism? And secondly, of course, it's not that easy to convert to Judaism. See our article Who is a Jew? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually most Jews have not been converts except for those Khazars who did not last and were presumably converted to Islam and a few people who converted. Most Jews are from a similar heritage. Here is the article. There was a bit of interbreeding, but not much. Most of the Jews you see today are those left from the ones that didn't convert and get absorbed into their host populations. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that article is interesting indeed: In July 2010 Bray's et al. using SNP microarray techniques and linkage analysis[49] "confirms that there is a closer relationship between the Ashkenazim and several European populations (Tuscans, Italians, and French) than between the Ashkenazim and Middle Eastern populations" and that European "admixture is considerably higher than previous estimates by studies that used the Y chromosome" adding that their study "support the model of a Middle Eastern origin of the Ashkenazim population followed by subsequent admixture with host Europeans or populations more similar to Europeans" and that their data imply that modern Ashkenazi Jews are perhaps even more similar with Europeans than modern Middle Easterners. The level of admixture with European population was estimated between 35 to 55%. - I guess that it was more than a bit of interbreeding and conversion. Flamarande (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ethical foundation of democracy

What is the ethical foundation of democracy? Is democracy based on deontology or consequentialist ethics? Since democracy believes the political system will work in a way which the majority wants or the government policy should reflect the wish to the majority (most of the people), is democracy a utilitarian concept? --999Zot (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, yes. In veyr general terms, deontological ethics would implies that there were rules that society should follow; either you follow them or you don't. So there would be justification for laying down laws that gave weight to your ethical rules, even if your rules were not popular. That is, philosophers from the deontological school are less likely to have a problem with autocracy that consequentialists.

Even with this in mind, that utilitarians would bend always bend to the will of the majority is quite another thing entirely. They would be feel as bound as anybody to point out if the general public were being shortsighted, for example. But they would be more likely to support democracy on the whole, I feel. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 13:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that democracy as a really existing political system is the product of centuries of social evolution and a testament to the ability of people to achieve great things without agreeing on what it is they are doing. It has no coherent philosophical foundation. People with greatly divergent ideas about justice and the good have made contributions to its development, and the project is by no means finished.--Rallette (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

International News Photographic Service

What was the International News Photographic Service? It played an important role in the article de:Michael Siegel. (See http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/our_collections/siegel/index.asp for an English report.) — Sebastian 07:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"International+News+Photographic+Service"&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1 Google News returns various articles with pictures it supplied from 1933 to 1935, but no other dates. Although I can't prove it, I strongly suspect that they are the same people as International News Photos, which was a division of the International News Service. Warofdreams talk 11:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds very possible, but I don't want to write that in an article without a source ,and it seems hard to find any source for that. — Sebastian 06:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

why are people wrong

why do people have ideas that are obviously wrong. if they aren't smart enough to see how obviously wrong the idea is, wouldn't they at least differ to more learned men and women? 188.28.126.160 (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably for reasons similar to the reasons you spell and use grammar incorrectly. (It's defer, not differ. And sentences should start with capital letters.) I'm not trying to be smart here, but just highlighting different perspectives. To me, correct spelling and grammar are quite important. To you, not so important. Or perhaps we have had different levels of education. Also not a criticism, just an observation. I teach high school kids and hear dumb ideas every day. I generally don't tell the kids their ideas are dumb, but try to point them in what I believe is the right direction. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

They shouldn't really start with conjunctions, either... Tevildo (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please could you present one example of an idea that people, in your experience, have... that is "obviously wrong"? Please make it a really good example, that is both definitely "wrong" and obviously so. --Dweller (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

We have a List of common misconceptions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

When people believe something, it is not obvious to them that what they believe is wrong. They have their own reasons for believing that their ideas are right. What may be obvious to you is not obvious to them. As to why people don't defer to those who are more learned, most people trust their own judgment more than the judgment of others. They may feel that the learning of those who are "learned" is not really valuable, or that it has blinded the learned to a more mystical awareness of things or to "God's truth". Alternatively, they may feel that the learning of the "learned" has caused them to lose touch with reality, and that people such as themselves who don't waste time with silly books have a better grasp on reality. Marco polo (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually had a class on this in the context of archaeology. Reasons are all over the board. Some people are stupid, some things just seem to make sense, etc. I don't feel like going into detail about it, but there are lots of reasons. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

From a psychological point of view, the questioner may find List of cognitive biases helpful, particularly the section on theoretised causes of cognitive bias. There are lots of ways to get stuff wrong! It's sometimes argued that having a brain that gets stuff wrong may actually have evolved because it has certain benefits (for example there's a trade-off between getting a judgment call correct, and the time taken to make that judgment call - and in the wild, slow but perfect decision-making can be fatal, whereas decisions that are fast but not 100% reliable may save your life more often than endangering it).

Especially relevant to the original question: the overconfidence effect "is a well-established bias in which someone's subjective confidence in their judgments is reliably greater than their objective accuracy, especially when confidence is relatively high. For example, in some quizzes, people rate their answers as "99% certain" but are wrong 40% of the time. It has been propose that a metacognitive trait mediates the accuracy of confidence judgments, but this trait's relationship to variations in cognitive ability and personality remains uncertain. Overconfidence is one example of a miscalibration of subjective probabilities."

Even more extreme: the Dunning–Kruger effect "is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes. The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning conclude, 'the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.'"

So, if you're overconfident that you're correct, you're unlikely to defer to "higher authority". A fascinating interview with Dunning in the NYT includes the famous instance of an incompetent bank robber:

Wheeler had walked into two Pittsburgh banks and attempted to rob them in broad daylight. What made the case peculiar is that he made no visible attempt at disguise. The surveillance tapes were key to his arrest. There he is with a gun, standing in front of a teller demanding money. Yet, when arrested, Wheeler was completely disbelieving. “But I wore the juice,” he said. Apparently, he was under the deeply misguided impression that rubbing one’s face with lemon juice rendered it invisible to video cameras. ... As Dunning read through the article, a thought washed over him, an epiphany. If Wheeler was too stupid to be a bank robber, perhaps he was also too stupid to know that he was too stupid to be a bank robber — that is, his stupidity protected him from an awareness of his own stupidity.

I think "but I wore the juice" is a perfect illustration of how "people have ideas that are obviously wrong" - but " if they aren't smart enough to see how obviously wrong the idea is, wouldn't they at least differ to more learned men and women?" is a more open question. It's Question Time (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Smart people are definitely no less subject to contradiction and delusion than the less intelligent. If anything, more so. The problem is how people deal with contradictions in their reasoning. When he comes upon a contradiction in his thought, the wise person looks for the wrong premise or the mistake in his reasoning and corrects it. The not so wise average person drops the subject and develops an antipathy to discussing touchy subjects. The brilliant fool takes his contradictions as unquestionable givens, and rewrites reality to conform to delusions too painful for him to resolve. μηδείς (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Singapore

This question is related to Coat of arms of Singapore. From that page you can see that the image of the coat of arms is different from the one shown on the coin below. In fact newer coins issued after 199x (can't remember which year), changed the crest on the coin, so it is identical to the actual coat of arms. Is it due to a change in the image of the coat of arms itself? or something else? I can't find it in the article itself and I'm very curious to find out. Thanks.--Ben.MQ (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The difference is in the ribbon.--Ben.MQ (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

In heraldry, it's important to distinguish between the elements of a 'coat of arms' that are fixed (by the wording or 'blazon' of the 'letters patent' or equivalent issued by the body granting the arms) and mere stylistic variations, which can be considerable - much more so than in a typical commercially registered trade mark, for example.

In the instance of the Arms of Singapore, they must include the five 5-pointed stars arranged in a circle (with a single star at the top) above a horizontal upward curving crescent moon, all in the centre of a red shield [these elements themselves constitute the "coat of arms"]. If the whole 'heraldic achievement' (or "arms") is depicted, it also must include the unadorned golden lion and (naturally coloured or 'proper'?) tiger supporters on their respective sides, probably the golden plant (palm?) fronds on which they are standing, and certainly the motto ribbon beneath, whose gold letters and blue background are probably also specified. (Note that this 'achievement' does not include a 'crest', which is a decoration worn on top of (usually) a jousting 'helm' (and can be displayed on its own), or several others elements that can be included in an heraldic achievement but are not in this one).

However, provided that those verbally defined elements are followed, the detailed shape and proportions of the shield, the exact 'tinctures' (i.e. colours, though in heraldry that word defines a special subset of tinctures), the artistic style and non-specified details of the supporters, the shape of the ribbon, etc, are entirely up to the artist who creates a particular realisation of the arms. Although the letters patent will include a depiction, it is intended to be for general illustrative purposes only, not as an exact template whose every stylistic detail must be faithfully followed.

Beyond an individual artist's style, general styles in heraldic art go in and out of fashion along with fashions in society. For example, the 'mantling' which always hangs down the back of a helm (as a sunshade) was originally quite small and straight edged. Through the middle ages it became (in the UK) increasingly larger and more ragged edged, in line with the dagging of contemporary fashions and due to actual or notional wear and tear on the battle/jousting field. In the 19th century (when the physical armour and arms being depicted had mostly ceased to exist) it typicallly came to resemble a pile of seaweed. In the mid-20th century Don Pottinger and other heraldic artists returned to a much more simple, "realistic" style. Today it is usually shown somewhat elaborate, but less so that a century and more ago. All other elements of the achievement, as well as drawing styles in general, went through similar changes in fashion.

That said, although heraldic authorities allow considerable latitude in how arms are depicted (within their blazons' limits), the particular owner of a particular grant of arms might enforce considerably more restriction on depictions of them, especially in official governmental contexts. My own County Council in the UK has issued a long and detailed style manual, including exact colour definitions and physical and electronic samples of its arms, for official use, and it's likely that the Government of Singapore has done something similar. These owner proscriptions, however, are independent of looser heraldic authority rules, and might be changed from time to time at that owner's whim. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.158 (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the informative reply--Ben.MQ (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Truth and reality

What is the difference between truth and reality? --999Zot (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you read our articles truth and reality? The definitions of these 2 words give you a good idea. Truth is "the state of being in accord with a particular fact or reality". --Lgriot (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I read it, but has difficulty understanding the concept. In the statement "The earth revolves around the sun". Is it reality or truth? --999Zot (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The statement is true, because it is in accordance with reality. So that statement is in a state of "truth". Gabbe (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This is known as the correspondence theory of truth. One of the problems with this theory is that it sees "truth" as a contingent property, which depends on the attributes of a changeable and possibly ineffable reality. It is not clear, for example, how the correspondence theory can be used to determine the truth of analytic propositions such as 1+1=2 or "if P and (if P then Q) then Q". One alternative approach is the coherence theory of truth. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gabe. The earth revolves around the sun, that is the reality of our world. Someone saying "The earth revolves around the sun" speaks the truth. In English you can't say that they "speak the reality", but you could say they describe reality, which is a way to say something true. --Lgriot (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Another point. When I say "The sky is blue" it is certainly not the reality, because the sky is not blue. So what will be the nature of this proposition? --999Zot (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

All you can say is "The sky appears blue to me". This is one of the problems with the correspondence theory - you can never be absolutely certain that your perception of reality corresponds with reality itself. Thus you can say "x is true because x corresponds with my perception of reality" - which is a disappointingly subjective theory of truth - but you can't say with 100% confidence "x is true because x is real" because you never completely know what reality is. Even "the Earth revolves around the Sun" is not entirely true, because it is more accurate to say "the Earth and the Sun revolve around the centre of mass of the Solar System". Gandalf61 (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The statement "The sky is blue" is far too ambiguous to be assigned as simple "true" or "false" value, by any sense of the word "truth". What to do you mean by "the sky"? Which sky, and at what time? And which shade of "blue" are we talking about? It's a bit like saying "John is tall". Which "John"? And "tall" compared to whom? When we sloppily use words in a way that doesn't unambiguously refer to specific real-world phenomena, or to precise mathematical statements, we often run into fuzziness problems like these. Gabbe (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The King on the Radio

A while ago I remember reading about the first address that (I think it was King George VI) the king made on the radio to the population, and apparently it started with something like "Hello boys and girls, this is your king speaking". Is this right? Can anyone let me know the exact text? Jeremy Wordsworth (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The earliest address I can find that he gave was the 1937 Christmas speech. There is audio online in various places e.g. [16], but I can't find a transcript. He apparently gave a notoriously bad speech in 1925, of which there is no recording[17], there is a recording of him in Glasgow in 1938[18], and he spoke more regularly from 1939 following the start of World War Two: the text and a recording of his first address on the war is here[19], and he also spoke to the nation at Christmas that year[20]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It would not surprise me to hear that George VI started a radio address with those words (one directed specifically at children)... but apparently he did not open his first radio address as King with those words. Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

In the above newsreel film of an exhibition in Glasgow at the 9:52.32 mark there are visible parked on the track two rows of about a dozen cars, one row light and one row dark. I suspect that the dark cars are limousines for the well-to-do and the light cars are taxis waiting for the rest. Can anyone confirm or deny my guess? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Empress of the ottoman empire?

In her article, Roxelana is called "Her Imperial Majesty the Empress of the Ottoman Emire". Is this truly correct? Did the wives of the ottoman sultans have the ecquivalent title of an empress? This title is not referenced in the article, and if she did not have the title of empress, nor an equivalent title, would it be correct to remove the unreferenced title from the article? I am posting this question here to make sure. I have found no information that there was any sort of "empress" title or empress position at the ottoman court except for the position of valide sultan, which was given to the sultans mother, not to any of his wives. The sultan had several wives or concubines, and none of them seem to have had an official title or position to that of an empress. --Aciram (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Normally, the Ottoman Sultans did not have "wives" in the western sense. There was an official part of the royal court known as the Imperial Harem, which was headed by the Sultan's biological mother known as the "Valide Sultan". The Harem was composed of all of the females of the royal court, including the Sultan's concubines. There appears to have been a heirarchy within the Harem, and the highest ranked concubines were given the distinction of being "Kadın", a term usually translated as "wife". However, Roxalena presents an interesting case, she was given the title of "Haseki Sultan", a title which was not part of the normal Harem system, and which appears to be a sui generis creation just for her; given that this was a unique creation, it perhaps could be translated as "Empress", she would be the only one, which is why it would be hard to find other examples. As an aside, it appears that we have two articles which need merging. There is an article about her under both of her names, Hürrem and Roxelana and we need to remedy that ASAP. --Jayron32 15:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, I fixed the problem, which was an attempted copy-paste move a few days ago. --Jayron32 15:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

More: The Roxelana article clearly states "in an astonishing break with tradition, eventually was freed and became his legal wife, making Suleyman the first Ottoman Emperor to have a wed wife since Orhan Gazi." In other words, she was an Empress because she was the legal wife of an Emperor, a rare occurance among Ottoman Sultans in that the Sultan did not normally marry in the traditionally understood sense. --Jayron32 19:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Archaic Globalization

How is it best to introduce archaic globalization? If too much information is added it becomes repetitive and the reader will not want to continue on further. Is short but sweet the way to approach this? Also, is it wise to reference archaic globalization as a reason modern day globalization has emerged this way? I look forward to your response and thank you for your time.

Bfowler513 (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

I assume you're asking for help in improving the "Archaic globalization" article here on Wikipedia? Gabbe (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The nature of keys in fire department lockboxes

In recent days, there has been a buzz of news surrounding proposed changes to the fire code in Cedar Falls, IA. Specifically, people are questioning the legality of the fire department lockboxes on the outside of commercial and multi-unit apartment buildings, which contain keys for entry for use by the fire department. (A news story covering this controversy is here. [21]. )

Now, the city I live in has had these boxes as long as I have known, and I haven't thought much about them. But some of the coverage I have been reading about the Cedar Falls case implies that these boxes include keys to the individual units, as well as a key to the building. I had always thought that the boxes in my town only contained exterior door keys.

I cannot find, in any of the news coverage or anywhere else, a clear and unambiguous statement of what keys are kept in these boxes, either in Cedar Falls or in the other places that this system is used. My question should by now be obvious, but I will state it directly. Does the Cedar Falls rule require door keys for individual apartment units to be in the box, or just a key to the exterior door? Does this differ from the system as implemented in other parts of the US? gnfnrf (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Just as a side point, this may be a real-world example of WP:BEANS or more to the point, Security through obscurity, i.e. it isn't in the interest of the civic authorities to publish the full details of the "fire department lock box key system." By publishing or publicizing the information you are asking about, the city is, in essence, telling potential crooks the exact way to break into the system. The information you seek may literally not be publicly available since making it so available presents a significant security risk for those communities that use these sorts of lock-boxes. --Jayron32 19:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The locks on multiunit apartments are usually fitted for master keys, so that the superintendent can let plumbers and the like in if need be. Since the firefighters have access to the lock box so that they can, well, fight fires, it would make sense for the lock box to contain a master key. Of course, the firefighters have axes, too. PhGustaf (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding restructuring of Greek debt

Am I missing something, or have Jean-Claude Trichet, speaking for the European Central Bank, and many European officials (as cited in this article) adopted a position that is at best irrational but in any case contrary to the interests of European taxpayers? These officials oppose any restructuring (i.e., write-off) of Greek debt, even though most economists (who have addressed the issue) agree that a Greek default is inevitable. (See for example, these sources: [22] [23] [24].) Instead of restructuring Greek debt and setting up a sustainable repayment plan now, these officials insist on lending Greece more money, increasing Greece's debt, and increasing the amount of taxpayer money that will have been spent merely to delay the inevitable default. I cannot find an argument in the media for why such a delay is in the interest of anyone but these officials themselves, who may thereby avoid having to deal with the inevitable default while they're in office. Can anyone find an argument justifying this delay in terms of the public interest? Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Resturcturing isn't that simple. Most sovereign debt isn't in the form of loans from banks, it is in the form of Government bonds. Restructuring a national debt isn't like renegotiating the terms of your mortgage so the bank doesn't have to foreclose. In the case of the mortgage, there's one lender, the bank, who gets repaid by you in the form of an annuity, i.e. a series of smaller payments. When you refinance/restructure/renegotiate your debt, you and the bank reach an agreement to renegotiate the terms of your repayment, i.e. by lengthening the term or lowering the accruing interest, something like that. With sovereign debt like Greece, instead of one lender you have millions of lenders, and they bonds aren't payed back on an annuity plan, they are paid in full with interest on the date of maturity. There isn't a way to restructure this debt plan, Greece has an obligation to pay the bond's principle + interest on the date of maturity, and if they don't pay this off they default. Restructuring Greece's debt would mean that the bondholders would be forced, against their will, to accept that they are not going to be paid according to the terms of their bond, they will either get payed less money than promised, or get paid later than the date of maturity. When creditors are forced to accept less-than-face-value for their loans that they made to a debtor, that is the textbook definition of bankruptcy. Calling it "debt restructuring" doesn't make it a different thing. So, either Greece repays its bonds on time, or it doesn't. It isn't in the interest of the rest of the Eurozone to see Greece default, for several complicated reasons. First, there's the moral hazard that allowing Greece to do so would encourage governments to demand similar treatment (Ireland, Portugal, etc.). Second, most countries can pay off their bonds by simply printing more cash (Debasement); this pisses of creditors because it causes inflation to lower the value of their bonds, but there's not much that can be done. Greece can't do this because it has no currency of its own. So, it can't default, and it can't print more cash. Greece is basically stuffed, so the only option left is for the Eurozone to keep Greece afloat with more loans, at least until such time as Greece can get its own house in order. --Jayron32 19:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm truly sorry, but I have my honest doubts about your analysis (I might be honestly mistaken - I'm only human after all). A bank isn't forced to refinance/restructure/renegotiate your debt if it doesn't want to.

It can go to a proper court, which will take over the case. If the debtor is simply unable to pay its debt, the court makes a ruling, and in the bitter end the debtor is declared bankrupt. The debtor's real property is sold, and the lenders (the bank) are repaid as best as possible. This also applies to the debts of private companies. All its assets are sold and the lenders are repaid as best as possible. Banks usually avoid taking these steps because it takes a considerable amount of time (the wheels of justice turn slowly) and because they don't truly want your house but rather your/their money (their business is lending money and collect interest).

However we are not dealing with the debt of a private individual or private companies but with sovereign debt of a national government. I'm simply unsure if the same rules apply. I mean which court has the jurisdiction and the power to order and truly force the government of Greece to sell of some of its assets (like its 111.7 tons of gold, public property, god knows what else)?

"When creditors are forced to accept less-than-face-value for their loans that they made to a debtor, that is the textbook definition of bankruptcy" is IMHO simply wrong. Debt restructuring simply is not Bankruptcy. It's more like an agreement between the lenders and the government in question. The lender doesn't want a bankrupt government (which would be unable to pay at all) and the government is unable to pay on time. Therefore the two usually reach a compromise: the first waits for a couple of years longer and second pays a little more. The government can even pay less. This seems to have happened before: Argentine debt restructuring. Flamarande (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Governments are simply a bit above normal rules. They are usually considered too big to fail.

You kinda make my point for me. Greece isn't in debt to banks, it is in debt to bond holders, so the situation isn't the same situation. It doesn't owe money on collateralized debt (like mortgages) and it doesn't own money on credit cards, and it doesn't owe money to banks on business loans or on payroll loans, or to a guy named Vinnie who will break your kneecaps if you don't pay. Greece has bond obligations which it has to either pay or skip out on. If it skips out on them, its credit rating tanks, and then it can no longer issue bonds at a reasonable interest rate, meaning it cannot do business. There is no bank, or set of banks, for Greece to negotiate its bond obligations down to. It can ask for relief in the form of loans from other central banks to pay off its bonds (essentially, this is exactly the sort of debt restructuring private individuals do when they, say, roll their credit card debt into a home equity loan, or something like that) which is exactly what it is doing now. Basically, the Eurozone is loaning Greece money (in the form of bank loans) to pay off its bond obligations. It is refinancing its debt... Regarding the Argentine situation, it is very similar to what is going on now: Basically the IMF acted as a "white knight" creditor and issued loans to Argentina to allow them to pay off their debt obligations (albeit, at reduced terms). What Greece (and the Eurozone) is currently trying to avoid right now is the "at reduced terms" situation. --Jayron32 23:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Your mention of "some guy named vinnie" (which is a lovely colorful euphemism by the way) is particularly apt. That's always the bull elephant in the room when it comes to international policy of all kinds, Bank of America doesn't have ballistic missiles but nation-lenders do. No one is honestly suggesting Greece's creditors use military force to get satisfaction of their debts, but some right-wing pundits have called the US national debt a moral imperative because it is a potential national security issue. HominidMachinae (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This is I understand this whole situation: the EU is lending a great deal of money to the Greek government so that it can pay its government bonds. Then it sends financial specialists to advise/warn the Greek government how to seriously spend/waste less money, collect more taxes and to kick-start its economy by slashing certain policies (like subsidies, early retirement age, etc) which are popular in certain circles of the population but de facto hurting the Greek economy as a whole. After a couple of years the Greek government will hopefully repay most of its debt to the EU at a relativly low interrest (way lower than it would get from the market).

The EU is obviously NOT helping because of compassion but mainly because of sheer self-interrest. IF Greece becomes unable to pay its governments bonds it will unavoidably hurt the other EU countries. First, the market would increase the pressure on other stumbling countries (read: Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, etc). Second, several important American and European banks (French, German, British, etc) have bought a huge amount of Greek government bonds. IF the Greek goverment suddenly becomes unable to pay them the banks would lose an enormous amount of money. Then the increasing pressure would be upon the banks. However IF more than a couple of banks lose the confidence of their investors and of the general public they could collapse (bank runs, etc). THAT could and probably would devastate the economies of the other countries to the brink of major economic turmoil, including those which seem to be recovering (Germany, France, etc).

The REAL PROBLEM is that the Greek economy as a whole is rather dependent upon a spending/wasting government (by the way that's also a serious problem in Portugal, Spain, Italy, USA, god knows how many more). Too many Greek companies are/were focused upon their main client: the Greek government.

The sudden U-turn of the Greek government ("we are unable to spend/waste the huge amount of money as we always did because if we do it the UE will not lend us its money") will obviously reduce the demand of certain goods and services. Too many Greek companies whose main client was the Greek state are forced to cut down on their own costs (read: fire employees). That in turn will obviously lead to an increase of unemployment subsidies. It will get even worse: the frightened Greek people spend increasingly less. That in turn will reduce the amount collected by certain taxes like VAT.

The real goal is that the private Greek companies turn to private clients and foreign markets to sell their products and goods. IF that goes well they can hopefully (re)hire ppl reducing unemployment. The whole process would/will turn the whole Greek economy less dependent upon the Greek government crazy spending.

It's going to hurt a lot more before it gets better, but so be it: the previous situation led to the whole mess and we simply can't go back to governments spending like crazy and wasting too much money as previously. It simply doesn't work: the government simply spends too much money suppossedly "to help the national economy" only to raise its taxes to pay for its spending (it's basicly a big vicious circle). The PIIGS governments have been been running huge deficits for several decades already and were raising taxes even before the whole crisis started. And AFAIK the Greek government paid several millions to certain banks in order to hide their true numbers to better decieve the UE supervision! It was bound to collapse sooner or latter. Flamarande (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC) PS: I'm not 100% certain if all of the above is correct. I might be certainly mistaken, but this how I understand the whole mess.

Free living wage distribution

Is it possible to introduce a free, country-leveled living wage distribution (except for those who receive pension) via automated currency-producing process (to reduce salary-related expenditures). Each person except pensioners and infants (say, between ages 10 and 59) is supposed to receive a fixed monthly living wage in cash and the distribution is supposed to be conducted through a well-evaluated number of pay offices. One of the expected benefits, aside from prosperity, could be high purchase power--178.180.3.214 (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

How would you suggest paying for it? Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The currency-producing process is supposed to be free of charge and mostly or entirely automated. --178.182.39.40 (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the currency-producing process devalues the currency by the exact amount of the produced currency. Look at it simply: Lets say that the entirety of the U.S. Economy was represented by ten $1 bills. If you own one of these bills, you own a value equal to one tenth of the U.S. economy. Now, lets say that the U.S. government prints and distributes ten more $1 bills to random people. Suddenly, you're $1 is worth half as much as it used to be, overnight, without you doing anything. It is now only worth 1/20 of the economy. The economy doesn't have any more value in it; all that has changed is the share of the economy that your dollar represents. The same principle applies regardless of how many bills there are in circulation, or indeed that we even use currency at all, or deal in purely "virtual" money in computer ledgers: increasing the money supply without increasing the value of the goods and services that back that money supply doesn't improve the situation for the economy in any measurable way. --Jayron32 20:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I know that roughly speaking some people should have less money than others in order to keep currency valuable, but this is it: would the inflation rate in my suggestion be that horrible or not? --178.182.22.5 (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the inflation would indeed be "that horrible" (actually, it would be worse). Blueboar (talk) 22:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

My very rough calculations imply that "topping up" all workers' wages to at least a "living wage" of $15 an hour would cost something like $750 billion a year. That sounds like a lot, but we already spend about $500 billion a year on "safety net" programs. The U.S. could, theoretically, replace all of its anti-poverty programs (refundable EITC, TANF, food stamps, home heating assistance, etc.) with a guaranteed minimum income and still spend less as a percentage of GDP fighting poverty than other developed countries. I don't know if that would be a good idea, just pointing out its plausibility. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Your suggestion of producing a social wage by expansion of money supply is unusual. By regulating prices, capital reinvestment (growth) and profit you could do this without a consumer price inflationary element. This will crash the national rate of profit, and your country's credit rating, and have significant civil society impacts. In many ways a social wage is the implicit outcome of a fully developed welfare state: the wage structure is flattened by empowered bargaining for the weakest, progressive taxation, and benefits for those unable to work due to injury or a lack of jobs. In many ways these initiatives had significant civil society impacts. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

@the OP: What you are doing here is confusing money with value. Ask the people who held on to one hundred trillion Zimbabwean Dollar notes if they felt particularly financially stable. Money, in a healthy financial system is tied to value: I can expect my dollar to buy me a bag of potato chips today, but the dollar is only worth what my confidence is in its ability to buy that bag of potato chips. If today it buys a bag of potato chips, and tomorrow it buys a stick of gum, and on Friday I wipe my ass with it, because that is all it is good for. In order to have value, money need stability. If the government is printing buckets of money for no good reason, then where is the stability? Even in stable economies, printing money causes inflation. So, lets say that poor people in your economy can only afford, with their current cash, to buy enough food for lunch, but not dinner. So you give them all enough cash to buy dinner, for free. What happens? Well, what you find is tomorrow lunch now costs twice as much as it did yesterday. What did that extra cash do for those poor people? They have more toilet paper now, I suppose... --Jayron32 23:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

@Mwalcoff: What part of your calculation did you take into account the number of people who quit working entirely just to live off the government dole? Most people don't work because they love it. They work because they need the money to pay to live. If my options are a) $10.00 bagging groceries or b) $15.00 an hour doing nothing, which job am I going to take? People making $10.00 per hour provide much of the goods and services that provide value for the economy. If people aren't working, they aren't producing value. The net size of the economy shrinks, and with it the value of the dollar those people are getting from you. What also shrinks is your tax income, since the economy is smaller, you take in less tax revenues. There are intelligent ways to use social welfare to raise the ability of people to contribute to the economy in positive ways, but giving them a check every week to do nothing isn't it. Social welfare is a vital, important, and mandatory part of a healthy democracy, and very much needed. But it needn't be in the form of no-strings-attached checks which pay everyone enough so they don't have to bother working... --Jayron32 00:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You could look at the political economic bargaining in the Australian economy between 1941 and 1983 over the appropriate wage level as a proportion of social production. While wages amongst different skill levels of workers flattened (see arguments from university degreed workers over "relativities flattening") the chief mechanism used to discipline an expanded working class share of national product wasn't unemployment during this period, but inflation in a consumer economy rather removed from our current understanding of what a consumer economy is. (In the 1980s, unemployment became the chief "externality" to discipline the entire Australian working class, though with a brief period of the use of interest rates). This is to say, that during the 1970s when a social wage effectively existed in Australia, voluntary labour market exit to solely social wage subsistence was miniscule, and not a significant economic impact. Refusal to reinvest profits, or arrange for easily accessible credit, on the part of capitalists was a more significant hinderance to growth in this period. (Broadly Jayron32, you're analysing society as if only the working class and the state are political economic agents, you need to incorporate capital as an agent; in the 1970s, as demonstrated in Chile and New Zealand, or the 1960s, as demonstrated by Australian peak level wage bargaining, capital was very much a self-conscious system wide agent). Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, quite certainly capital is an economic force, consider the situation in the U.S. right now. The experts keep telling us the recession is over, because most of the standard indicators of the economy indicate it is humming right along. Most, except one, that being unemployment. Basically, the U.S. economy has figured out how to make money without employees. So the working class in the U.S. right now is having a very shitty time, and yet other economic players (especially corporations) are doing just fine. Coupled with a dead housing market, we have the strange disconnect that nearly every indicator of our general economy says that the basic economic system, as measured in terms of things like GDP and gross macroeconomic measures, the national economy is humming right along. Except that people are out of work, and can't buy or sell their house. So, who is the economy supposed to be "working" for. While it is true that, as you implyu Fifelfoo, you can massage the numbers to show that an economic situation is fine, by ignoring the "working class...as an economic agent". That's pretty much bullshit, however, since said working class is the bulk of the people. Saying that an economic system can safely ignore them is meaningless. Its like saying "In the middle ages, everyone was rich...excepting the peasents and serfs". The real experience of real people is what it is all about, and it seems rather pointless to claim that the personal financial experience of the bulk of your population is somehow not the central issue in any economic policy. --Jayron32 01:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely up to "So, who is the economy supposed to be "working" for." Since the 1830s in the United States and the 1910s in the United Kingdom, the bulk of the electorate have been workers—yet in both countries government and market activity has been broadly counterposed to the interests of workers, usually in a very immediate sense. (A ready example is the use of anti-trust law in the United States in the early part of the 20th Century, in conditions where the union's primary threat was production enhancing wage-skill mixes favourable to Taylorism and improved OH&S). The strange lacunae of class warfare of 1940–1980 in the United Kingdom, United States, Australia; a period of social welfare for whites, high employment, and steadily increasing volumes and qualities of products consumed by workers is the problem period. Not the current situation of a market and state being run in interests opposed to the vast majority of the population. Additionally, capital as an agent may be pushed into non-optimum total distributions of income (ie: vast income inequality within the working class, changing the consumption mix away from an optimum balance for cycling the economy faster) where capital requires internal hierarchical differentiation to maintain control over factory situations (paying the foreman and staff more). Reading highly summative political economic debates over the appropriate level of remuneration, in an arbitration situation where the court demanded expert witnesses, the interests of private profit as an absolute were often put and often triumphed over conceptions of the economy as a whole. Profits and inflation have regularly trumped wages, even when the conservative pro-private enterprise state agent has supported expanding wage incomes, even when the market is crying out for more effective consumer demand. I don't defend it, when I am not an editor I oppose it; but wasn't Reagan's argument that in the 1980s everybody was rich except for…? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Jayron: I'm assuming this is a "top up" for workers making less than $15 an hour, not a welfare entitlement payment for people who may not be working at all. I'm not endorsing the plan, only doing a thought exercise as to its fiscal plausibility. Of course, on top of the $750b you'd have to have unemployment benefits for people out of a job, plus Social Security for people of working age who can't work, etc. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Not surprisingly we've focused on your creation of expenditure out of increasing the money supply, rather than the policy component. You could do well to rephrase as a pure policy supplied out of recurrent funds. Additionally, given the central role of the United States in world capitalism, you may wish to rephrase your suggestion for a smaller, more constrained capitalist economy. New Zealand has often been used as an experimental economy (with consequent highly disruptive social impacts on the lives of New Zealanders). With an expense from constrained consolidated revenue what would be the impacts of raising the wages of workers to $X using directly government supplied income supplements. You could also consider this via employer administered wage supplements funded likewise, or through taxation relief or negative taxation for such workers also funded likewise. Unlike printing money, expense from constrained consolidated revenue would decrease government spending in other areas (I'm guessing not defence or welfare for capitalists, so from another kind of welfare for workers): this would either wage flatten workers, or result in the unemployed being even worse off. Doing so from an unconstrained general revenue (ie: tax increases), would result in wage flattening via tax (taxes affect profits and corporate reinvestment much less than they do wages). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Greece's rating

How can Greece have such a low rating? Even lower than countries at the brink of a civil war/Islamic revolution/expropriation/whatever... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.12.164 (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Civil wars and revolutions don't necessarily result in defaulting on debt. Usually, whoever ends up in charge afterwards carries on paying the debts of the old regime (if they don't, the rest of the world tends to be very unhappy about it). Also, the debt of the kind of countries you mention is often what we call "third world debt" which is usually lent by other governments (or the IMF), rather than companies and individuals, and isn't really expected to be paid back. And, of course, oil-rich countries tend not to have any national debt at all (and have sovereign wealth funds instead), so if any of the countries you had in mind fall into that category, there is no need to worry about them defaulting. --Tango (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Another factor is that no one is lending large amounts of money to those nations. Foreign money funneled into them either tends to be no-strings-attached foreign military aid, other aid, ect. Honestly Greece is in worse shape because no one expected it to fall apart, they thought it was a safe enough investment it was worth loaning them money. HominidMachinae (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

mythology questions

1. Did Hades have a scepter/Bident and keys in mythology? If so, what are they for? 2. What is the story and symbolism behind Ares/Mars shield and spear? 3. What is the story behind Hermes' lyre? Neptunekh2 (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I bet you could find the answers to all those questions in the very articles you linked to. I did. Have you tried reading them? Matt Deres (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

June 15

The "Doom Book"

I'm not sure how I stumbled across it, but I was checking out our article at Doom Book and was thinking of expanding it, perhaps including the list of names it supposedly contained. After some admittedly quick Googling, I am starting to worry that the article is a hoax - every return I see looks uncomfortably like a mirror or near mirror of our article or else is about something else entirely. I don't doubt that our editors acted in good faith (that's not AGF or anything, you can preview Russo's book at Amazon and he does indeed mention it once in passing), but I'm starting to wonder how real this Doom Book actually was. Did it actually exist or is it a kind of metaphor for what was undoubtedly going on in Hollywood at the time? Was it like McCarthy's supposed "list" (i.e. just a scare tactic)? Can anyone find a reference independent of the Russo book? Perhaps even the list itself? Apart from my concern about the article, I'd like to learn more about the list. Matt Deres (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If you search Google Books (not just Google Web) for "Doom Book" Will Hays you will get three pages of books that talk about it, many of which you can preview. Looie496 (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Wives of Vasili IV of Russia

Does anyone have any information on the wives of Vasili IV of Russia. This site list Maria Pss Repnina and Maria Ekaterina Bugnosova-Rostovskaia as his wives. But who were they and were they Tsaritsa consorts of Russia? What is the Pss in the first woman's name.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't access that site, but I suggest Pss is short for Princess. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Measuring a civilization by the lowliest members

Beloved Refdeskians, please help where my Google skills are lacking! I've seen this quote about judging a society by how the lowest members are treated attributed to Dostoevsky, Churchill, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, the Statue of Liberty, and pretty much everyone who's ever been quoted, except for Oscar Wilde. Is there an actual, factual source? Foofish (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dostoyevsky at least wrote "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." (In The House of the Dead.) And the ubiquitous "Gandhi" quote you are talking about seems not to be reliably traceable to Gandhi, neither the "weakest members" nor the "animals" version. That's about as much as I can tell you.--Rallette (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Utilitarianism revisited

Take this example. 20 people are stranded in an isolated island with no transport possible with the outside world for many days (due to any reason). The people are feeling hungry and some have started to fell ill. Then one of them opines that one among us must have to die, then we will practice cannibalism, and this will save most of us. Otherwise we all will die in hunger. Utilitarianism will argue since the killing of one individual in this particularly situation saves the lives of 19 people, so this act is ethically justified. So we can see utilitarianism has disregard for individuality and human rights. Then why do such an inhumane approach to ethics called utilitarianism is accepted so widely? --999Zot (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because you're killing a person who is doomed to death soon enough anyway? 75.40.137.154 (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The obvious solution to that moral dilemma is to just wait until somebody dies on their own, then eat them. This avoids the risk of the rescue party arriving right after they are killed. There's enough variation in people that someone is likely to die while others are still able to make arrangements for him (table arrangements, that is :-) ). StuRat (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A better what-if scenario might be that you don't have enough air to last until the rescue party is scheduled to arrive, so have to kill off people to save oxygen. StuRat (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Typefaces with monospaced digits?

I am working on a print project that is full of numbers, and I need a typeface with monospaced digits.

Please do not tell me to just go with a font that is monospaced for all characters. It seems to me that those typefaces are not really designed for figures-only, as they give each digit too much width for my purpose.

What I mean is, I want "11" to be the same width as "10" or "12", so a column with numbers in sequence will not look funny. 75.40.137.154 (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried the usual, meaning most commonly used, fonts? I find that the majority of the fonts installed on this computer actually have monospaced digits, from Times to Garamond to Baskerville to Century. Though I suppose it may depend on what software you are using and all that.--Rallette (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Times doesn't. Try this test with the fonts:

   111111111111
   222222222222
   121212121212

Oh, and I forgot to say: I want a font with strokes that do not vary so much in width. This is for a calendar. I am trying to make something useful, not beautiful. 75.40.137.154 (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Then it could be just a question of settings. See for example this. In MS Word, which I used to test this, most fonts have monospaced digits by default (but then it is software for lawyers, basically). Whatever design software you are using, I suppose you should be able to specify monospaced digits, for any font that has that option.--Rallette (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)