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

April 6

Religious deaths

What religion is responsible (both directly and indirectly) for the most deaths worldwide in the last 10 years? Thecottonbud (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Define "indirectly". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Define 'responsible'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

And explain how the question could be objectively answered for say the French Wars of Religion. Was the 'religion' responsible for the war 'Catholicism', 'Protestantism', or 'Christianity'? I'm sure that the Catholics would have held the Protestants responsible, and vice versa - while an outside observer might well opine that it was 'Christianity' that was responsible - or possibly 'religion' in general. Or possibly suggest that religion was largely a pretext for a war between competing factions amongst the ruling elite. There isn't going to be a meaningful single answer to such questions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

There is also the very problem of defining "religion" to deal with. --Shirt58 (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Jedi, definitely. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 09:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Mammonism is a bad religion, both for killing and validiity. But don't forget that most of the "real" religions don't believe in death. When those types send their kids to war, they're not actually killing them, but sending them wherever.

May as well also define "last" ten years. We've still a few to go before the final decade. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:05, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of Bad Religion, they claim "The Biggest Killer in American History" is American history itself, but that was in 1998. And of course, defining Bad Religion songs is for anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:08, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

The Rape of Nanking

Are Japanese students taught about the The Rape of Nanking in school in the same kind of way that Germans are taught about the Holocaust? 61.90.38.41 (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't believe they are. What little they are taught about the period seems to be along the lines of trying to balance anything bad they did with bad things done to them, when the reality was that they committed far more war crimes than were done to them. StuRat (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Children are not taught about the Nanjing Massacres, as it does not concern them. They are more likely to receive education which is immediately relevant to them. Spending an hour in a classroom telling them about a massacre that happened many years before they were born (and is not even relevant to the Chinese young people today, except when the government wants to divert attention from real issues), would be like wasting time telling them about how the Mongols killed 2 million people in Nishapur in the 13th Century - irrelevant. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 08:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying (and do you know for sure) that the Japanese curriculum has no history course that covers WWII? If so, that seems to be a huge deficiency in the education system. Our article on the Japanese history textbooks controversy suggests what you're saying isn't true. If there is a history course that covers WWII, and it doesn't mention the Nanjing massacre, that's obvious and inexcusable whitewashing of Japanese history. The same article suggests this isn't the case either: "Despite the efforts of the nationalist textbook reformers, by the late 1990s the most common Japanese schoolbooks contained references to, for instance, the Nanking Massacre, Unit 731, and the comfort women of World War II" --Bowlhover (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I taught in primary schools in Japan. The school books do mention it, but not in thorough detail, as the kids are still learning other things, which are actually more relevant to their lives. Did we, in the UK, learn at school about the bombing of Dresden? No. We were learning other things. There is only so much you can cram into a person's head in a short space of time. Never blame the kids for something that happened 70 years ago. It had nothing to do with them. 'Original Sin' is a ridiculous Christian concept. I didn't eat the apple that Eve gave to Adam. Don't blame people for stuff they never did. All of these Chinese demonstrations against Japanese schoolbooks being re-written is completely just to divert public attention from scandals, like the inherent corruption in Chinese government, the scandal of lead poisoning for children's milk, etc., the list goes on. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 09:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. You just said that children are not taught about the Nanjing massacre, but now you say primary school textbooks mention it? The OP wasn't asking specifically about primary school; he presumably meant to include high school, where the country's history should definitely be taught. Also, who was blaming kids for anything? You're using strawmen against imaginary opponents, because nobody was even trying to argue with you. --Bowlhover (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Bowlhover, The article on the controversy linked to above does actually say 'elementary schools'. I was there in Japan at the time, and in China people were attacking Japanese businesses and destroying Police cars which were Japanese-made. It was big news in Japan, because people were thinking "What the hell is going on over there?". KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 03:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I find that an extremely misguided and short-sighted approach to teaching. Not to repeat platitudes, but "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". The purpose of school should not be to make tame functional robots out of children, it should be to enable them to think independently, to arrive at sound judgement, and to be able to continue learning for themselves. It's not about "blaming" the current generation for deeds of the past, it's about showing them relevant examples of what humans, under an inhuman system, are capable of doing, and thus to enable them to recognise dangerous tendencies in government and society in time to do something about them. Just as British schools should teach about the slave trade and the Opium wars, German schools should teach the Holocaust, Belgian schools should teach about Belgian Congo, and US schools should teach about slavery, the native American genocide, and, yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Kids don't have the capacity to weild guns, create concentration camps, or use nuclear weapons. If they want to learn about these historical hiatuses in the development of our species, then they will do, simply by reading about it. School is not for making them feel guilty about things that people they have never ever met did before they were born. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 11:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

All of the perpetrators of The Rape of Nanking were children themselves once. Maybe if they had been made to feel a bit guilty about things they wouldn't have grown up to be such awful people. 117.173.22.50 (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The teaching of history, as with all subjects, is a layering approach. As you get older they give you more details. Also, pure education is overrated. The murderers in ISIS were well-educated. Lot of good it did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

But Kage, then why ever bother to teach any history at all? --147.85.186.6 (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Here in the southeastern US, the main group of people you hear saying that children don't need to learn about slavery and Jim Crow (our centuries long Nanking) are white supremacists, followed by their friends who don't know any better, followed by their friends who don't know any better. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with KageTora's claim that the event "is not even relevant to the Chinese young people today". It is taught in schools as part of Chinese history, as far as I remember my students telling me. I don't know China inside out, but I'm fairly clear on this point. Whatever else Kage says about demonstrations is separate, but sounds like too much POV to me. IBE (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

We are leaving out an important question here... what level of education are we asking about? There is a huge difference between what is appropriate to cover at the primary school level and what is appropriate to cover at the university level. Depth of coverage also changes as the education level increases. Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The simple answer to the original question is no. The Japanese, unlike the Germans, have never reached a consensus that their conduct during the Second World War was morally wrong (see Vergangenheitsbewältigung), and so there is no sharp focus on Japan's moral transgressions during the war, again unlike in Germany, where Germany's immorality during the war is a focus of the history curriculum. One key difference between Germany and Japan is that, although the firebombing of Dresden and Hamburg was horrific, Germany was not exposed to the terror of the atomic bomb. This experience allowed some Japanese to maintain a feeling of victimhood. Another is that, while the Nazis were largely discredited in Germany, Japan's prewar elite largely retained its status after the war. Marco polo (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Did the Japanese have a system in place whose purpose was to exterminate an ethnic group consisting of millions of people? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No, but they did murder millions of people. Most people would consider that morally wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The article says 300,000 at most. Do China or Russia take responsibility in their history classes, for the mass murdering committed by Mao and Stalin? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

300,000 is the total for Nanking, not for Japanese murders during the war. Rmhermen (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Now that's another story; see Russian Schools to Teach Putin’s Version of History. Alansplodge (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Millions is a total for the war. See Japanese war crimes#Mass killings. Are you suggesting that if they only murder a few hundred thousands at a time then it isn't morally wrong? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No. And millions of their own died in combat, as Japan paid a heavy price for their aggressions (as did Germany). My question was whether it was a systematic slaughter, as with the German Holocaust, or was it just anyone they felt like killing (as with Stalin). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It sounded like a rhetorical question in objection to a post saying "The Japanese, unlike the Germans, have never reached a consensus that their conduct during the Second World War was morally wrong". I don't think you should have to be as bad as Nazi Germany to admit you were morally wrong. Millions of murders should be plenty. See Japanese war crimes for more details of what they did. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Politicians like to whitewash the past. We have some of that in America, as some are pushing to minimize the references to the civil rights movement, in public education textbooks and the like. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? The article I linked to, Japanese history textbooks controversy, implies students are taught about the Nanjing massacre. --Bowlhover (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's review some of the reasons a nation should face up to it's own history of genocide:

1) As said before, to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

2) So they can understand and negotiate with those who are the survivors of the genocide. In the case of Japan, being able to understand the Chinese mindset would be very helpful in any negotiations. The same is true for North and South Korea, the Philippines, and everywhere else the Japanese massacred civilians.

3) Without understanding Japanese behavior prior to WW2 it's impossible to explain why just about everyone attacked them. This could lead to paranoia that the world is out to get them and isolationist policies based on that.

And, to be sure, it isn't just Japan that has this issue. It's even illegal to talk about the Armenian Genocide in Turkey, for example. This has been a stumbling block to them joining the EU. Of course, more recent genocides deserve more attention in the education system than ancient ones. In particular, the point where there is nobody left alive who remembers the event is probably where it can go to a lower priority. In the case of Japan, that's still several decades off. StuRat (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

But then by the same token, should not students in the U.S. be taught of the internment of Japanese Americans as part of the history of World War II?    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 17:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

We are. At least, I was. --Trovatore (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

So was I. Also note that Internment_of_Japanese_Americans#Reparations_and_redress talks about attempts to make up for this incident. I'm not aware of the Japanese making any comparable efforts, despite their mistreatment of civilians being far more brutal and widespread. StuRat (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I was taught about the internment of Japanese Canadians in Canada. We also discussed the Native American genocide, the expulsion of Acadians, eugenics, voting restrictions, etc etc. --Bowlhover (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I grew up in and live in the Southeastern US. We were taught some about the internment, but more about slavery and Jim Crow (even as in elementary school), since that was a bit more along the lines of "we better not do this again, and should discourage others from behaving similarly." Some of my peers even went on field trips to go pick cotton with their bare hands, which got plenty of kids to immediately go "ok, all slavery is wrong forever, even if there's no cotton picking involved." Claims that such history isn't relevant to kids is an excuse ultimately started by people who want to repeat those mistakes (main group opposed to teaching about slavery and Jim Crow? white supremacists). Those excuses might get repeated by people who don't know better, but they start with and are rooted in justifying rape and murder.

I'm even pretty sure that a number of my peers were introduced to the concept of rape through learning about slavery. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The slave trade and Britain's role in it are taught in British primary schools [1]. Alansplodge (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar - there is no reason to teach children from the age of six (i.e. primary school children) about what happened in WW2. There are lots of other things they need to learn. If they want to know, they can do it at university, and then tell other people. In the UK, when I was in high school, we weren't even taught that it was the British that invented concentration camps (South Africa, Boer War). There are only two things I remember from High School history class - one is that the Magna Carta was signed by King John (in Liverpool - which turned out not to be true), and that the vikings didn't have horns on their helmets (oh, and one more thing - the teacher always wore the same suit). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 05:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, the OP asked about students, not specifically primary school students. There is no reason why high school students should not learn about their country's history, and in any case, the OP was asking about the actual situation in Japan, not your personal opinion. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I do apologize, Bowlhover for not stating that I lived in Japan for ten years. This is not personal opinion, this is personal experience. I've been there, done that, got the T-shirt. I know what I am talking about. If you find it difficult to understand what I have said, then I suggest that if you are really interested, do some research before attacking a fellow Wikipedian. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 10:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The OP would need to clarify, which he won't be doing anytime soon, as he's now on a 60-day block as an open proxy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Some odd comments about what would be taught in the UK - we learnt about the Rape of Nanking at O Level when I was at school. DuncanHill (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't do history for GCSE (which we start at age 14). Most of the history I learnt since has been taught by myself. Previous to that, we didn't learn much about wars. I didn't know where Nanjing was until I actually went there at age 20. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 04:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

What history, if any, do you think should be taught in schools? Iapetus (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

What age are we talking about? Six year olds are still learning to read and write. You mean high school? Look, for most kids, they are only learning in order to pass their final exams, so they can get into university. What happened 70 years ago may be of interest to some (but completely irrelevant for any kind of job - all it does is get an understanding of why the Chinese 'randomly' get angry at Japan), but they will find that out by themselves. I shall reiterate - there is only so much that you can cram into a person's brain in a short space of time. Lessons in Japan are approximately 40 minutes each. Then they have to learn other stuff. Filling kids with guilt about what other people did is not a good education system. You can mention what happened in Nanjing, but you don't have to terrify them with the horrific details. They will learn by themselves, by the magnificent inventions of TV and YouTube. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 12:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Valuable natural resources

What are the top five most valuable natural resources? In other words, if a country wanted to be rich, which five natural resources would it desire to have under its soil? 78.146.100.146 (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Google the subject and you will get a good range of opinions. The general answer would be based on "what does the given country have that other countries are willing to pay big bucks for?" That's going to vary by country. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Water, forest, wind, sun, and carbon-based energy source. They can all generate electricity, but they are not all underground. There is also geothermal energy source, but I think that is more of a modern invention. 140.254.136.157 (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A mine full of tritium, diamond, painite, californium 252 and antimatter will pay for itself pretty much instantly. As far as we know, though, antimatter isn't underground, and three others are very rare. Not what any one country will have, but what it'd want. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:45, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

A mine full of antimatter might not get you the results you'd want, but you'd be past caring at that point. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering if "pay for itself instantly" was some sort of ironic metaphor. --Trovatore (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd assumed the Hypothetical Kingdom would be rich enough off the first four (all now artificially scarce) to implement some spiffy new procedures for the tricky stuff. But yeah, wouldn't be great in the real world. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, April 8, 2015 (UTC)

See also The Ballad of the Northern Lights, by Robert W. Service. --Trovatore (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

In the short term, see this and similar lists, generally featuring oil, gas, coal, various minerals, etc. In the long term, see Natural capital which could include arable land, water supplies, biodiversity, etc. Another interesting read is this World Bank report that suggests the ability to manage resources sustainably may be as important if not more so than any one natural resource. Taknaran (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Aye. A Thneed is a thing that everyone needs, but unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing's going to get better. It's not. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:56, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

Note that some resources tend to be more of a curse than a blessing. Fossil fuels, for example, tend to make a small number of people very rich, who are able to get control of the fossil fuels by bribing the government, which results in a corrupt government and a poor and oppressed population. Other mined resources, like diamonds, can pose similar problems. Farming, on the other hand, tends to result in a more equitable distribution of wealth and power, as it's difficult for a small number of people to control all the tillable land. StuRat (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

How far apart were English towns and fiefs in the early 19th century?

In Pride and Prejudice, I remember Elizabeth walks about five miles from her father's house to Netherfield Park. That may imply that the physical distance is really not that long, and that the distance between one English manor house to another English manor house is within walking distance, as long as the walker is willing to spend several hours and take into account of dirt and obstacles. Is the "five miles" the same five miles as the one that Americans use? Since when did England use the metric system and abandon the customary system? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Five miles is not such a long walk, really. A healthy adult can walk that distance in an hour and forty minutes. Before the advent of bicycles and cars, people routinely walked that kind of distance. The distance between English manors would have varied, but in most areas they would not have been more than a couple of hours' walk apart. Distances would have been shorter in areas of fertile pasture and cropland and greater in areas with barren uplands and moors. English miles are the same as American miles. Distances on roads in the United Kingdom are still indicated in miles. The British government adopted a policy of movement toward the metric system in 1965, but the changeover has been no more than partial and has not been enforced in many areas. As a result, the system of imperial units is still in wide use. See Metrication in the United Kingdom. Marco polo (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a long walk at all. My mother used to tell me how she used to have to walk three miles each way to school every day, back in the late 1920s/early 30s. Even in my day, in the 60s and 70s, you were only given a free bus pass if you lived more than two miles from school and were under 8 years old, or more than three miles away if you were older, as it was considered reasonable for kids to walk that far (I had a bus pass when I started primary school, had to pay the childs' fare between 8 and 10, and my secondary school was just over three miles the other way when I turned 11, so I got a pass again. At least those practices quickly made you very competent at using public transport (from a lot of questions asked on places like Yahoo Answers I get the impression that most kids nowadays are so dependent on Mum and Dads Taxi Service that they have no idea how to use buses and trains), I remember frequently travelling around 4 miles on my own to the local town when I was 8 or 9 (of course, it helped that my eldest brother was a bus driver, and all the other drivers knew who I was and kept an eye on me!). -- Arwel Parry (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

English manors (the term "fief" is medieval) were often less than a mile across (in southern England at least) and there could be more than one manor in a single parish. The southern English countryside is very densely populated and visitors from outside Europe often remark that they've only just left one village (by car) before they find themselves in the next one. Walking five miles without passing through a settlement of some kind would be unusual, unless you were making a concious effort to avoid civilisation.

Although we have different pints, gallons and tons to the US, we have the same linear measurements. Sadly, everything we buy has to be measured in the metric system except milk and beer, for which we have an exemption from the European Union on cultural grounds. We're still clinging to miles on the roads though. Alansplodge (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A fit adult walks at about 3 miles per hour. I have no reference for this but concentrated human settlements (not hamlets) appear to have been 6 to 8 miles apart. Just as foxes and other critters have a territory, are ancestors seem to have a six to eight mile territory. Even modern man that lives (in say) Los Angeles and has to commute, he still spends most of his social life in a 8 mile radius. Male youths are a little bit different. They may frequent sorties further afield. An instinctive throw back perhaps, to look for mates that their blood is not related too. --Aspro (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I found this 1 inch to 1 mile map of part of Hampshire (Jane Austen's home county) dating from the first decade of the 19th century. It shows that settlements are closer than the 6 miles User:Aspro quotes above, although admittedly many of them are quite small by today's standards; it shows that the cathedral city of Winchester is not much bigger than a modern village. Alansplodge (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That map shows a lot of hamlets which I specifically excluded. Also, I was talking about average. Some areas obviously would had greater or lesser hamlets growing into villages. It is apparent in literature too. In Lark Rise to Candleford; Lark Rise is eight miles from the nearest market town of Candleford. I think it might have something to do with humans spacial awareness. It even reflects into the modern day where the London Black Cab drives are required to show proficiency in "The Knowledge" [2]. I.E. A six mile radius of Charing Cross. It is hard-wired into us and early settlements followed that pattern before the population exploded.--Aspro (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The Pillars of the Earth (a novel set in medieval England) mentions a rule about how far apart marketplaces were supposed to be. IIRC they were supposed to be 20 miles apart, so you'd be within 10 miles of the nearest one, a third of a day's walk. The idea was you'd spend a third of the day walking to the market, a third of the day at the market, and a third walking back home. These days in terms of getting to school, 3 miles by walking is time-consuming but by bicycle it's pretty quick and easy (I did that for a while). 50.0.205.75 (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Which countries or cities are using biodegradable shopping bags?

Can you provide me with a list of countries or world cities which give out biodegradable shopping bags to shoppers? Is India and China using biodegradable bags? Please provide a source of reference. Thanks. 173.33.183.141 (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The United States. There are biodegradeable shopping bags in the United States. Some stores use them. 140.254.229.128 (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Back in the olden days we called those "paper". Recent reports cast doubt on the ability of plastic to degrade as claimed.[3] Rmhermen (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you asking about biodegradable plastic shopping bags? You might find the information at http://www.allaboutbags.ca/aroundtheworld.html to be helpful.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If we recycle plastic bags, that be would good for the environment. Do mixed recycling facilities collect and recycle regular plastic bags? 173.33.183.141 (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Not so much in the US, that I've seen. But many grocery stores accept those bags for recycling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Currently China and India are not using biodegradable bags. In 2008, China banned ultra-thin bags, which were thinner than 0.025 millimeters and imposed a fee on all other bags. China is currently working to put regional recycling in place because the Chinese tend to shop daily due to a lack of refrigeration. The ban is reported to be effective in reducing bag usage by 66% although compliance is inconsistent across the country. In India the problem surrounds a national litter crisis due to an ineffective waste management system. Authorities have tried to implement bans on plastic bags but the bans are consistently disregarded. Many cities have made the move to ban single-use plastic bags such as Honolulu, Hawaii, Austin, Texas, San Francisco, California, and countries such as Taiwan, Rwanda, and Macedonia. Italy and France have made efforts to mandate the use biodegradable plastic films and ban the use of non-biodegradable plastics. This website provides a list of different countries and their stance plastic bag usage. http://www.allaboutbags.ca/aroundtheworld.html Other sources include: http://www.ivieinc.com/the-past-present-and-future-of-single-use-plastic-bags/ http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17027990 Amro237 (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, around here "paper or plastic" was a standard part of grocery checkout. Paper bags fall apart if they get wet, plastic doesn't biodegrade. Supermarkets here sell fairly sturdy re-usable bags inexpensively and those work well, except for the issue of already having one and forgetting to bring it. They are useful though, so I don't mind having a lot of them. Biodegradeable plastic bags are pretty terrible, particularly for trash/compost bin liners. Besides being flimsy to begin with, they actually decompose while in use, so they fall apart when you try to empty the trash. I haven't figured out a good alternative. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Chinese (PRC) law

I'm doing a little bit of background research for a project and I'm trying to understand what laws exist in the People's Republic of China regarding medical research, specifically related to indepedent ethics committee review of clinical research. I'm 99.9% sure that it happens, since it's a common global practice under the Declaration of Helsinki. I've done a few google searches, and one mentioned a 2000's-era "Good Clinical Practice Act" that talked about research subject protection. The law may not explicitly mention ethics committees (IEC is the common global term, especially in Europe; the US calls them IRBs). Is there any place to find a copy of this law in either English or in a machine-translatable format? 150.148.14.8 (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that searching for the original law means you have to understand simplified Chinese. This website looks promising. A Chinese-English dictionary may be helpful. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

ETA: I found two more sources that may be of use to you. The articles are written in English. Excuse the typo in one author's name.

• Wang, X., Liang, Z., Huang, H., & Liang, W. (2011). Principles of ethics review on traditional medicine and the practice of institute review board in China [Chinese]. Chinese Journal Of Integrative Medicine, 17(8), 631-634. doi:10.1007/s11655-011-0820-1
• Wahlberg, A., Rehmann-Sutter, C., Sleeboom-Faulkner, M., Lu, G., Döring, O., Cong, Y., & ... Rose, N. (2013). From global bioethics to ethical governance of biomedical research collaborations. Social Science & Medicine, 98293-300.

The first source is concerned with traditional Chinese medicine and the ethics and laws that deal with them. The second source is concerned with proposing ideas that may aid in ethical considerations in medical research legislations. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. 73.19.23.200 (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

April 7

Friend zone

I just read about friend zone but is there such thing as acquaintance zone, whereby if someone doesn't try to turn an acquaintance into a friendships within a certain period of time, then they're stuck as acquaintances? 90.198.252.17 (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, there's a certain amount of inertia. If a coworker only expects to nod to you when passing, and never goes out to lunch with you, then nothing is likely to change unless you make a definite effort, and even then they might be suspicious that you want something. StuRat (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

How does somebody 'ork' a cow? Shouldn't 'orking a cow' be somehow a criminal offence? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 10:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It is. That's why they're expected to go out to lunch with you so they, otherwise yourself, may confess.--Askedonty (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it's better than muffin' the mule. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 15:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "acquaintance zone". "Friend zone" is the term used to describe the concept that an individual marks another individual as a friend, not a lover. This is one aspect of life, where cultures may differ. In some cultures, men and women are allowed to become merely friends or "friends with benefits". In other cultures, such relationships are almost always likened to courtship, and social norms may guide people how to behave around members of the opposite sex. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not that there's no such thing (there is), it's just that the friend zone is the one currently enjoying popularity as a meme at the moment. The underlying principle seems to be that all heterosexual men are always looking to "advance" their relationship with women to the point of sexual relations; ones that are "merely" very good friends with a woman are said to be in the "friend zone". It's often played for laughs online, but it highlights the frictions that can arise when two people have differing ideas on what their relationship is and where it's going. See also When Harry Met Sally.... Matt Deres (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Central Asia and Eastern Europe

why dont we hear much about central asia and eastern europe in india( west bengal)People and media not interested and no mention if not rarely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.93.163.126 (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Send a letter or email with your question to the TV news stations or the newspapers in West Bengal. This is an encyclopaedia. Not a forum. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 10:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You may also find the Media bias article interesting. (And Media bias in South Asia, although that's not very detailed.) 184.147.117.34 (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What percentage of the total male population have been convicted of a crime? Is the number lower for women?

What percentage of the total male population have been convicted of a crime? Is the number lower for women? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.218.107.66 (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Worldwide, or for a particular country? --Jayron32 13:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

(EC) In the entire world, ever, throughout history, or are we just talking about one country and within a certain time frame? You need to be a bit more specific in order for such a question to be answered. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 13:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The OP geolocates to China. He or she may be interested in the total male population in China that have been convicted of crime and the total female population in China that have been convicted of crime. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

We have an article Sex differences in crime. For the USA, you want the BJS, here is there report on women offenders [4]. This book [5], titled "Women, Crime and Criminal Justice: A Global Enquiry" may also be of interest. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

An answer for China on the sex ratio issue (the OP's second question) is in our article Incarceration of women (if you take incarceration rates as a gauge for conviction rates). According to the International Centre for Prison Studies, as of August 2014, the Chinese women prison population ...[comprises] 84,600 female prisoners or 5.1% of the overall Chinese prison population. The article also gives figures for Russia and the USA. 184.147.117.34 (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Animals live in a hell of which mankind are the devils."

In The Great Code, Northrop Frye attributes this remark to Arthur Schopenhauer (I say "remark" rather than "quotation" since Frye seems to be paraphrasing). Since I don't have a copy of Frye's book in front of me, I'm having trouble finding a citation, though I suspect Frye gives a citation of some sort in an endnote. If anyone has the book, the passage in question is on page 94 of the Google Books edition (looks like the newest one), in the "Metaphor I" chapter. Alternatively, if anyone happens to know the Schopenhauer source directly, that's even better. Thanks in advance. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Die Menschen sind die Teufel der Erde und die Tiere die geplagten Seelen". It's in Parerga and Paralipomena. There's an English version here which translates the full sentence as "One might say with truth, Mankind are the devils of the earth, and the animals the souls they torment.". 184.147.117.34 (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thank you very, very much. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Your average gazelle might take issue with that notion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Because lions? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

Bingo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Consider that only humans have the capacity for mercy. Look up bot fly and parasitic wasp. μηδείς (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You've obviously never seen a cat feed its lunch. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:52, April 8, 2015 (UTC)

I actually thought that this objection might come up, but that's not "mercy" (the relief of unnecessary suffering, compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender or an enemy), it's caregiving as a response to cuteness, which is found in many mammals. It's most common with mothers who've just born (and sometimes lost) young and are hormonally primed, and of pets kept inside and not allowed to learn how to hunt. Humans may indeed be devils to themselves and animals, just as cats that play with their prey. The statement has literary or propaganda value, but it's certainly not any sort of categorical truth. μηδείς (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

More of an exception than an objection. But it's totally mercy. I know a lot of cats, and their general rule is "inflict unnecessary suffering on small cute things". Sometimes they eat them after slowly killing them, sometimes not. But when they choose to not only let them off the hook, but give them milk, that's mercy and generosity. Good cat!

Might just be the hormones talking, or a mother's "weakness", but emotions drive most rational decisions. Same reason we humans show mercy, and why in tight spots, we'll often pull the "I have a family!" card and make puppy dog eyes. Smart squirrel! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

The point is unessential, and I am sure what I have said was understood, but the temptation to pick nits here is one we all enjoy. In any case, until cats start canceling debts they are legally owed, building charity hospitals, or until cat judges start lowering cat criminal sentences when their cat victims ask the cat judge to show the cat felon mercy, I'll maintain the distinction. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough.

For another unessential, overly general point, we're more likely to feel compassion for those who pick our nits. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:00, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't the United States part of the Commonwealth of Nations?

The United States was originally the 13 colonies. Although it declared independence from Great Britain, why isn't it part of the Commonwealth of Nations? Do Australia and Canada still recognize the English monarch as their figurehead ruler, even though they are independent from Great Britain? How is Canada's independence different from America's independence? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The answer is long and complicated, and has to do with the fact that the independence of America predated the foundational event of the Commonwealth by over a century. The Commonwealth of Nations traces its lineage to the First Colonial Conference, which took place in 1887. In some ways, the American independence led directly to the foundation of the Commonwealth of Nations, as the long, painful war caused Britain to rethink it's relationship with its colonies. In many ways, the failure of Britain to hold on to what would become the United States caused them to form the doctrine of responsible government for its colonies, and led to the entire Dominion process which was vital to the evolution of the various British Colonies ultimately to independent states. The process of colony-->dominion-->independence was developed in the middle 19th century, first with Canada (see British North America Act, 1867) and later with the other British colonies. The Commonwealth of Nations consists essentially of those countries which achieved their independence through some form of this process, rather than the U.S., which a) achieved its independence long before this process, and b) achieved its independence via violent revolution rather than via gradual evolution. And gradual it was; Canada only achieved full legal independence in 1982 (see Canada Act 1982), a process that took over 100 years from full colonial status to fully independent state. So THAT is why the U.S. is not, has never been, and won't be part of the Commonwealth of Nations. As far as members of the Commonwealth, the UK has no say over which form of government it takes; some have chosen Constitutional Monarchy, and others have chosen Republican forms of government. Canada and Australia are still Monarchies (officially, they have their own monarch entirely independent of the UK, it is just that the person holding the position is the same person. See Monarchy of Canada and Monarchy of Australia for more details). Other than those two, there are actually a total of 16 members of the Commonwealth of Nations which have constitutional monarchies (all independently so) with Queen Elizabeth as their monarch. The other 37 members of the Commonwealth of Nations are divided into 32 republics (with no monarch) and 5 states which are also constitutional monarchs OTHER than Elizabeth. --Jayron32 21:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Well answered. One minor correction: for "Other than those two", read "Including those two (and the UK itself)". --65.95.176.148 (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

According to Commonwealth_of_Nations_membership_criteria#Eligible_states there are 34 nations who could claim membership, if they had the political will to do so. LongHairedFop (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The 16 states with Elizabeth as monarch are not entirely "independently so": they have a convention that all must agree to any changes in the succession (e.g. Succession to the Crown Act 2013 was fully approved only two weeks ago). — I was curious enough to look up the other five monarchies: Brunei, Lesotho, Malaysia, Swaziland and Tonga. —Tamfang (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the UK has no say over what form of government these nations take; they're quite allowed to become full republics without the permission of the other 15. Also, they're quite allowed to abolish their monarchy and immediately re-establish a new one with a different person as Monarch. The law only covers legal succession within the framework of the existing situation, not a requirement that such nations maintain the current situation in perpetuity. The abolition of the Monarchy has occurred in other Commonwealth states (Republic of South Africa for example), and is a real political question which bubbles up in others as well (see Republicanism in Australia.) --Jayron32 12:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland seems to have been the first republic in the Commonwealth (1937) but she left in 1949. There has recently been some suggestion of her rejoining.[6] Alansplodge (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Not the place to canvass changes to a country's constitutional arrangements. Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not all Canadians choose to recognize the Monarchy. Personally, I don't and believe Canada would be much better off not being involved with England in the current capacity. I do not believe it is in Canada's best interests to have to get Royal Consent (or is it Assent?) for things that are clearly within Canada. To me, Canada remaining part of the Commonwealth and thus, "answerable" to Britain, is no more than a hold over of Colonialism. Better to be a Republic than a Constitutional Monarchy. We have more in common with our neighbors to the south right now than we do to Britain (not that we should be part of the USA either!). Now sure what the feelings are in Australia; I seem to remember that there was a push a while back re: leaving the Commonwealth. 216.223.72.182 (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC) A few issues with your post. Canada is not involved (whatever that means) with "England". Canada and the United Kingdom are two of the Commonwealth realms, of which there are 16 in total. These 16 countries are equal partners in a shared monarchy. The Crown of Canada is a different thing, legally, from the Crown of the UK or the Crown of Australia or anywhere else. The person who wears those crowns just happens to be the same person, Elizabeth II at the moment. Assent to Canadian laws is given by the Queen of Canada or her representative, the Governor-General of Canada, and nobody else. The Queen of Canada and the Governor-General of Canada are advised by their Canadian Prime Minister or other Canadian ministers, and nobody else. Advice as to who should be appointed as Governor-General of Canada is given by the Prime Minister of Canada, and nobody else, to the Queen of Canada, and nobody else. Canada is no sense "answerable" to Britain. The Commonwealth of Nations (which includes the above 16 nations with the shared monarchy, as well as 37 other nations that do not recognise that monarch) obviously had its genesis in Britain, but it is no longer British, not even in name. There was even a period during Margaret Thatcher's premiership when she got the other Commonwealth members so badly off-side (on the issue of sanctions against then-Apartheid South Africa, from memory) that there was serious talk of expelling the UK from the Commonwealth. This prospect was officially and publicly raised at a CHOGM (in Vancouver, Canada, from memory). So much for "British". The Commonwealth is just as much Papua New Guinean or Mozambican as it is British. Australia has never sought to leave the Commonwealth, and I can't imagine that ever being the case. What we did seriously consider, though, was becoming a republic within the Commonwealth, just like India, i.e. having an elected or appointed President rather than a hereditary Monarch as our Head of State. See Australian republic referendum, 1999. While that particular campaign was lost, it is common ground that such a change will eventually happen; it's now a question of when, not whether. In any event, this is not the place to discuss whether Canada should or should not change its constitutional arrangements, and I'm therefore hatting your post and my response. I just couldn't let it pass without some comments on your misconceptions. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Does the christian bible give any advice on the issue of cohabiting but not marrying?

Does the christian bible give any advice on the issue of cohabiting but not marrying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.1.137.102 (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Assuming you mean unmarried, unrelated people of the opposite sex living together, at the time of the Bible that would have been pretty much unthinkable, so they may not have bothered to say so, any more than they would have said "thou shalt not set thy neighbor on fire". Matthew 6:13 "And lead us not into temptation" might relate, though. StuRat (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Context is key in understanding scripture. "And lead us not into temptation" is taken from the Lord's Prayer, which is irrelevant to issue of cohabitation. I would say that the issue of cohabitation is associated with the issue of fornication. SSS (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You may want to be specific on the "Christian Bible", because there are many Christian bibles in the world. You may also want to look into the theological tradition, because different Christian theological traditions have different views on cohabitation. Look, I don't want to sound preachy here, but if you are interested in the Roman Catholic opinion, then here it is. In short, the Roman Catholic Church is against cohabitation, but it seems the article does give hints and suggestions how a Catholic may deal with this issue. Of course, if you are not Catholic, then you may just dismiss the webpage. SSS (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This authoritative reference details the official stance on cohabitation, citing from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I can't say whether it will be helpful to the OP, because the OP fails to mention a theological tradition. SSS (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

According to Exodus 22:16: "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins."

So, if you're a man and you cohabit with a woman (assuming this involves having sex), you must marry the woman after paying her father the bride price. If you're a woman, don't worry about it--as your father's property, he gets to decide who you marry. --Bowlhover (talk) 08:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to apply to cohabiting with a woman you're engaged to. Actually, it doesn't apply to a women who is engaged to someone else either. Also, it only applies if the women was a virgin before you started cohabiting. Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

All women are virgins before they start cohabiting with someone. Also, don't be confused by the term "engaged". It's actually the first half of the marriage ceremony that in those days was done in two stages. See erusin. --Dweller (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Think the answer to the OP's questions is no. The Bible records the tradition of noble families who wish to keep their power and influence in their tightly knit circle. Marriage, was a declaration enacted by those influential families coming together to ensuring 'inheritance' is keep within that circle. The sons could (and did give rise to bastards - with slave girls, concubines, etc) but those did not have any inheritable rights on any such estates. So there was no need to record advice about cohabiting -as it had no influence on family power.--Aspro (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Rmhermen (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the Bible gives no description of, or instructions for, a marriage ceremony or other action to make marriage "official". Descriptions of a couple becoming married are comparatively few and minimal in scope; a good example is in Genesis 24.67. If I understand rightly, all marriages were what we'd now call common-law marriage, with cohabitation being a major part of that. If I'm right, it really wouldn't be possible to cohabitate before marriage. Judging by our common-law marriage article, the situation I'm describing was apparently the case in ancient Greek and Roman culture, so the New Testament doesn't recognize the concept of unmarried cohabitation. Aside from occasional references to premarital sex between parties who aren't living together (e.g. Deuteronomy 22.13-21, which unambiguously condemns it), biblical prohibitions on sexual relationships generally involve concepts such as forced rape, adultery (in this context, when one or both sexual partners are married, but to other people), or relationships that are outright forbidden, especially incest. Most of this kind of stuff is found in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible; the few references in the New Testament typically deal with topics where people are reminded of commands they already knew about, and in some cases are ignoring anyway (e.g. incest in the first part of 1 Corinthians 5, and general "sexual immorality" later in the chapter), or simply commands to remember to heed what they already know, e.g. Hebrews 13.4. Nyttend (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I would agree in part with the above post in so much that marriages as we know them to day were mostly common law. Yet for inheritance to pass on they had to be recognized by the authorities so that upon death of the farther, there was no argument about which male issue (children) inherited the estate. There is a sense of this centuries later when Romeo 'took' a wife by laying with her (common law -wife) and then went to Friar Laurence to have it recognized. Of course, for poor people with no wealth to pass on, there was no need for a recognized marriage (until about 400 years ago in Britain but it might have been a bit later and even then, it would have just have been a blessing with no marriage vows involved.). Which I think the poster just above was trying to point out about common law.--Aspro (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, on this process being the basis for marriage-type relations. The concept of the mamzer appears only a few times in the Hebrew Bible, and it's apparently a reference to children of adultery, not children of a couple who aren't married to anyone. The answer to the original question appears to be concubinage (see discussion in the Jewish Encyclopedia); this is where inheritance stuff comes in, and it's a thoroughly minor component. Bear in mind that there weren't authorities in some of these situations. For example, the Bible portrays the figures of the patriarchal age (e.g. Isaac and Rebecca, in the "Genesis 24.67" link above) as being wealthy nomads, without states or other authorities to recognise anything in most contexts; the only real exceptions are the situations in which both Isaac and his father Abraham pass their wives off as their sisters, fearing that acknowledging them as wives will prompt foreigners to kill them, thus making their wives remarriageable. PS, see 1 Corinthians 7, a New Testament passage accepted in all parts of Christianity; the text clearly says "Celibacy's best, but you need to marry otherwise" Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, I agree partly. Yet only partly. Abraham had absolute authority (other than that of the higher being). Maintaining a pure blood line was essential. Once ones wife has born a heir and a spare they didn't care whose issue they produced after. Ones own blood line would go on. It was like passing on a second-hand-car. One careful owner but let the buyer beware.--Aspro (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The first volume of the Hasting Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics is available over at commons at commons:File:Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics Volume 1.pdf, and starting on page 177 is an article about "Agapetæ," which might be useful in this context. In a quick review of the article, I don't see any specific mention of what we would today call "Biblical" sources, but it does indicate sources from the apostolic age which were used to support the practice. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, ἀγάπη means selfless love. The women were not chattels which were owned by any man. The union was by mutual consent.--Aspro (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have published information about cohabitation (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200271288).

—Wavelength (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

April 8

Stereotype

Where did the stereotype that Jews rub their hands and say "oi vay" originate from? Was it Nazi propaganda that entered the public consciousness? Asteriad5 (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• See Oy vey. It is a native Yiddish term, and was not invented by any outside groups. --Jayron32 16:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that all major stereotypes of Jews are far older than the Nazis. Hand rubbing may be explained by Stereotypes of Jews#Greed. -- BenRG (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, fear mongering is inefficient when you're using something the people aren't already leaning toward fearing. Compare the War on Terror to the War on Drugs. A greedy man (of any type) would be a fool to invest in the latter. The War on Christmas is profitable, but only if you bet on Christmas getting a boost. The War on Puppies has no chance in Hell. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:23, April 8, 2015 (UTC)

The general persecution of Jews lasts longer than the entire history of Germany. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, April 8, 2015 (UTC)

Economic antisemitism#Historical development may answer your question. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:02, April 8, 2015 (UTC)

I've know countless gentiles who rub their hands together that way, although they don't usually say "oy vey". Come to think of it, why would a Jew say "oy vey" ("oh woe") when he's happy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

From where does Asteriad5 derive that "Jews rub their hands and say 'oi vay'"? I've heard of the stereotype pertaining to Oy vey but not that "Jews rub their hands". Is this a particular sect that rubs their hands? Bus stop (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, I think it's supposed to be a sign of greed. See e.g. wikiquote:Judaism: "they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands". Actually, I have no idea when hand-rubbing became associated with greed and it might have originated with the Nazis for all I know. See also this popular cartoon of a hand-rubbing Jew. -- BenRG (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Nowadays, tenting your fingers and saying "Excellent" is the cooler thing to do. C.M. isn't exactly Jewish, but his brother is possibly George Burns. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:19, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

• Who don't rub their hands or say eu, weh? The terms of oh, woe date back to PIE and have cognates in Latin, Greek, Old Irish, Welsh, Lithuanian, Church Slavonic, Armenian and Sanskrit. μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I know a lot of Jews, including my wife and sons and many of my closest friends. Jews do not say "oy vey" when counting money or pondering good fortune. They do say "oy vey" and roll their eyes sometimes, though, when somebody asks a silly question conflating unrelated stereotypes. Just for the fun of it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Brian Boitano gets teased by his colleagues for rubbing his hands together. I don't think he's Jewish. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought Brian Boitano didn't take shit from anybody. I'm so disillusioned. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

Associate monarchs

Throughout history, some monarchs have had their children made monarchs too, while the parent remains paramount; Henry the Young King was one such case (I first heard of him a few minutes ago) in England, as was the Roman Emperor Constantine Lekapenos. In many cases, these kings/emperors/etc. never had practical power, and aren't counted in the numbering — for example, Gibbon is the only one who calls him "Constantine VII" (everyone else accords the term to Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus), and Henry II and III of England were the Young King's father and nephew respectively. Is there a standard term for such a position, a generic term to embrace all countries? "Co-emperor" is often used in a Byzantine context, I've run into "coregency" for people like Jotham of Judah (but he seems to have held actual power, not being just the king's son with an exalted title), and the Young King article uses "associate monarch", but I don't know of something that fits all over the place. Nyttend (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe "Junior king"? There's a redirect of Junior king to Coronation#Coronation_of_heirs_apparent. Does that help? --Jayron32 16:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Tanist might also be of interest. Taknaran (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The term "associate king" is used in our Henry the Young King article and in The British Chronicles: Volume 1 by David Hughes, The Functions of the Medieval Parliament of England edited by G. O. Sayles (p. 13), King Stephen's Reign (1135-1154) by Paul Dalton (p. 55), and Anglo-Norman Studies XXX: Proceedings of the Battle Conference 2007 by C. P. Lewis (p. 27). Alansplodge (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Regent. The term "Regency" in the UK refers to the period during which the future George IV reigned in the place of his father, the ailing George III. There were other regency periods, but this is the one you normally see capitalised. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No, that's radically different from what I meant. I'm describing a situation in which George III (still in good health) had his son proclaimed "King George", but III reserved all powers and duties of the throne, and the future IV carried on as before, without any influence on or duties for the business of government, and essentially no practical differences whatsoever. The link to junior king, given up above, is much much more what I was looking for. Nyttend (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I have seen "co-king" to describe Henry the Young King, as well as two other 12th century examples, Philip II of France and Baldwin V of Jerusalem. Our own "co-king" link redirects to coregency though, which also does not seem quite right. The Latin title, apparently, was "rex iunior", which does simply mean "younger king", but also "junior" in the English sense of a junior partner. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Both "associate monarch" and "junior king" sound very modern to me, and rather out-of-place when describing medieval kings. If you're looking for a standard term that doesn't depend on the rank of the monarch, I'd have thought "co-monarch" or "co-sovereign" (both of appear to have some usage according to Google searches) would work. As an adjective, "co-regnant" (not "co-regent") would seem to be the correct term. These terms could also apply to joint rule by husband and wife (like Philip and Mary and William and Mary), though, so wouldn't specifically identify what you're talking about. Proteus (Talk) 10:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that some fathers had their daughters crowned in their lifetime too. Baldwin II of Jerusalem had his future successor Melisende crowned a year before his death. Tamar of Georgia was crowned six years before her father's death and took part in the government. Surtsicna (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Money question

If someone lends you a small amount of money and says "don't worry about it" in regards to you paying it back at a later date, do they really mean it or is it socially expected to pay it back anyway? Like how when people say "how are you?" they don't really care and are using the phrase in basically the same way as saying "hello". TVKMarkII (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

What is 'socially acceptable' depends (obviously) on the society in question, the relationship between the individuals concerned, the amount borrowed etc - there are too many unknowns here to give a definitive answer. And we don't answer requests for opinions. If you feel that you may be expected to pay it back, offer to do so when the opportunity arises. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

When ever I have said this, is because I don't what to embarrass a friend who has found themselves unexpectedly short of ready cash and leave him feeling indebted to me. Later, they come back and usually pay back cash or sometimes in kind - if that is more appropriate. In friendship, one doesn't keep a ledger of profit and loss. It is cooperation for long term benefit because some favors do not revolve around money but the need of a helping-hand from one that you trust and can rely upon. So 'money' is just one form that that helping hand can take. So "don't worry about it" just means: don't feel embarrassed, because you'll do the same for me. Respect that and repay at the very earliest opportunity. P.S. Only do this with trust worthy individuals. Otherwise they may call on you to do them a favor to (say) fetch their sisters bag from a locker and its only when walking out of the railway station and find yourself surrounded by FBI agents that you realize its full of drugs. Just be sensible about the company you keep.--Aspro (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Then you can get paid to pay them back, literally and figuratively, and also pay it forward to their friends, as a confidential informant. Of course, that's not acceptable behaviour, in most societies. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:29, April 8, 2015 (UTC)

The exception would be if it is a really small amount of money. How small depends on your social milieu. In my middle-class U.S. milieu, you might not worry about repaying amounts less than $5 (USD) to a friend. That's a little more than €4. This is assuming that you don't habitually borrow small amounts like this, which would be annoying. In a poorer country or even in the United States among people in poverty, probably the cutoff is lower. If you try to repay a very small amount (say less than $1 in the United States), the person receiving the money might feel insulted. But anything above $2–5, in my social environment, you should repay, even if the other person says "Don't worry about it." Marco polo (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I think another exception is that sometimes a richer friend will help out a poorer one with what is really a financial gift, but call it a "loan" to avoid the awkwardness that can be present in that situation. Then the poorer friend might pay it back, someday, if his/her circumstances improve, but the richer friend is not really counting on seeing it again. --Trovatore (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• There's also the concept in some soft-social-science/self-help circles called the emotional bank account The forgiveness of minor debts, as well as the debtor still paying them off, provides an important source of social bond-building. It may not be expected to be paid back as a loan would be, but it may be useful for the strength of the relationship to be sensitive to needs of the other person, and to be available for helping in what they need. This sort of give-and-take, without expectation for paying back, but willingness to provide, is useful in social networking and serves its own purposes. --Jayron32 00:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

See favourite for more on that. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Looks entirely unrelated. A network of friends doing small favors for each other because they like too has nothing to do with royal companions. --Jayron32 00:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

If you say so. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:26, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

"You don't have to worry about paying me back ... because I have your credit card number". :-) StuRat (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the language can be taken at face value: an attempt should be made at repayment but without accompanying worry. Bus stop (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• As to the advice we don't give (and the reason why this thread has been hatted) invite them for a drink, or dinner, your treat. That way they know they have been repaid, but nobody is saying, this is purely a financial arrangement. See reciprocal altruism (a very poorly named term) and Reciprocity (evolution). It looks like we have about five articles on the subject that could be merged. I certainly can't count the number of times in NYC that I have seen someone come up short at the register, only to have the stranger behind them in line pay the difference. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

But it has not been "hatted". Bus stop (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

David Mitchell (comedian) suggests that all such debts should be repaid. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

April 9

Is the life insurance contract toast?

Life insurance policy issued, with a certificate number and everything, asking for acceptance confirmation within 10 days. It's postmarked a day before the Insured died (a conversion from a Group Life policy to an individual, fixed payout upon retirement). I had written on the conversion form that the spouse would be the new owner of the policy, but while the check was accepted (amount due is now $0), it has not been cashed and the Owner is listed as the deceased on the acceptance form. New York State. Thank you. 69.22.242.15 (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be a request for legal advice - which we do not answer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Turkmen

What constitutions did the Turkmen SSR have, and when were they promulgated?Moclone (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

We love to help but did you even try google "turkmen ssr constitution"? (sans quotes) (1st hit at the top - google books) 196.213.35.146 (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

That only gives the date of promulgation of the first Turkmen SSR Constitution (1927), and doesn't say whether there were subsequent constitutions during the Soviet period. Hathi Trust has a copy of a Constitution that was promulgated on 2 March, 1937 (this same Constitution was still in use, as amended, at least through March 1948). That's all I can find though. And of course, the post-soviet constitution was promulgated in 1992. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Cielito Lindo

What's the gender of Cielito Lindo? I always assumed male, because it isn't *Cielita Linda. But Santa Barbara Music Publishing has a translation in their sheet music SBMP 566, which reads "... her black eyes like those of a smuggler", and translates "lindo" with "pretty", not "handsome". — Sebastian 15:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Cielito Lindo means approximately "nice skies", and it is used for very much the same sense than "sweetheart" was in English. It does not need to follow other gender agreements, as they are intended implied by the context.--Askedonty (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You are right, of course. It's very common for love songs to be intentionally vague about gender, so they appeal to people regardless of their sexual orientation. As the creator of {{gender-neutral}} I should have known better. :-] — Sebastian 18:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably that's what refdesks have been made for. In fact I'm not sure that a satisfying translation could be obtained without kind of "grammatically intruding" into the title expression, the way SBMP do. --Askedonty (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you lost me. I have no idea what you're talking about. — Sebastian 18:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just supposing that if you had been focusing on the translation given in the sheet music, as gender shifts do slightly differ between languages their presence is not always obvious from every possible view. In any event, in order to translate a foreign expression while keeping the original image and that image is not known in the destination language, that image has to be exaggerated, which risks giving way for later caricatures. I suspect this is why the publishers choosed to alter the gender inside the title expression instead. --Askedonty (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. I don't actually think they exaggerated, or even "altered" the gender, because, as you point out in your first reply, "cielito" doesn't even have a (natural) gender in the first place. So the translators just picked what is more common: That the subject of the song is a woman. Of course, if gender neutral pronouns were generally accepted in English, then they could have been truer to the original. (Or if you didn't have to use the possessive pronoun for body parts in English.) — Sebastian 20:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Same way the Comedian Harmonists didn't sing "meine liebe Schätzin, bist du aus Spanien" (and Elvis didn't sing "und du meine Schätzin bleibst hier" :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 20:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, I love the Comedian Harmonists! And of course, "Schatz" is a good example, because normal Germans such as me would not expect "Schatz" to refer only to men, just because it happens to be Grammatically male. That certainly contributes to answering the question, or at least makes the OP happy, and deserves to be written big; so, sorry, I had to edit your post. ;-) — Sebastian 21:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "grammatically male". You mean masculine. --Trovatore (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm guilty of having made the same mistake for the same reason as Sebastian: In German there is one word, männlich, for both "male" (in the biological and cultural sense) and "masculine" (in every sense). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping to my defense. But then again, we probably should avoid this topic altogether, since we're the people known for confusing the gender of a young lady with that of a turnip. — Sebastian 01:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Look, this has nothing to do with the song being a love song. Grammatical gender is only loosely related to biological sex. A male person is una persona, not *un persón. There are tons of other examples. Cielo is masculine, so is cielito. There is no more mystery beyond that. --Trovatore (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

That distinction has already been addressed above. What has to do with the song being a love song is that it's describing the beauty of a person's eyes, which, in our society and language, just is more expected to be "her black eyes" than "his black eyes". — Sebastian 21:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, you don't really have to rely on textual analysis for that. Cielito lindo has almost always been sung by male singers. --Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

{{cn}} Just because she sings so nicely, listen to Marta. When you're done, you will see many other ♀ singers. — Sebastian 21:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

How do gays and lesbians become couples?

Since homosexuality is so rare, how do gays and lesbians even meet and become couples? Considering that there may be considerable danger in revealing sexual interest to a person of the same sex, how do they know or find out that someone else is also gay or lesbian and start a relationship with that person? 140.254.136.154 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There are gay and lesbian dating sites. There are gay and lesbian pubs and nightclubs. Some people choose to openly advertise that they are gay/lesbian. In many countries it is not considerably dangerous, whereas in others it may be. Which country do you happen to be talking about? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 18:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

But what if a person does not drink alcohol and attends weekly church services? Do churches provide meetings for Christian gays and lesbians who may emphasize more on commitment and monogamy? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Going to a pub or nightclub does not necessarily involve having to drink alcohol, as they also serve soft drinks. Churches are not particularly relevant to the discussion, as people are forced (according to their social background) to attend them, and have no bearing whatsoever on their actual sexuality (except to mostly just make them feel bad about it). People cannot change their sexuality. They are born with it, and if some God disapproves, then let him know that he was the one who created you the way you are. Or just move on and accept reality for what it is. Jayron's answer below is very relevant in this reagrd, when it comes to Christianity. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 20:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Do nightclubs and pubs serve food too? Do the drinks have to be soft drinks? Do they serve distilled water or juice? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I've certainly been to gay pubs in London and had decent food and non-alcoholic drinks. As to religion: it's my experience that I can meet (although perhaps not date) my fellow queers of all kinds simply by attending high-church Anglican worship in the Diocese of London, and staying for coffee after the service. (Or sherry, as at at least one such church, the default after-service drink is also alcoholic.) AlexTiefling (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

They certainly might. I personally know several LGBT clergy, and many mainstream denominations are not hostile or discriminatory against LGBT people. So yes, homosexual Christians have the opportunity in many places to meet other homosexual Christians through church. Wikipedia has an article titled LGBT-affirming Christian denominations if you want more information. --Jayron32 20:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in many areas of the world there is not much danger, but in some areas there is. On WP, we have gay bar, Cruising_for_sex, Gay_bathhouse, Handkerchief_code. I don't know if something like the Hanky code is working in e.g. modern Iran, but it was very popular and useful in certain places and times in the USA. In contemporary USA, gay people meet partners much the same as heterosexual people do - awkwardly and with lots of trial and error. See also courtship, LGBT_community and LGBT_culture, and links therein. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and depending on where you are, homosexuality isn't that rare - Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#Modern_survey_results. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

As for knowing if someone else is gay, Gaydar is a real thing, though some people are better at it than others, and it's never 100% accurate. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

According to the only mainstream gay couple of my generation, one and one makes two, and that's good enough for me. (Here's the dry text, if that's more your bag.) Loneliness works for any sort of sex. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:03, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

Sexual interest is sometimes expressed in ambiguous ways. For example, instead of upfront flirting, you may say "lets compare bodyparts" and you scope the reaction. Others may flirt in a jokey manner and if one feels comfortable, move onto flirting. Others may feel more safe in a one-to-one encounter. That way, adverse reactions are less likely. 84.13.148.26 (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Cracked published 5 Dangers Of Coming Out To Your Family (You Never See On TV) today. Seems timely and relevant here. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:27, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

Today, my time. Not by the Greenwich schedule. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

As for the question about church services, please see Metropolitan Community Church, a denomination with 222 congregations in several countries. Other liberal Christian denominations are welcoming as well. As a Jew, I am aware that many synagogues (but not all) are welcoming to LGBT people. Pretty much every city in the world has gathering places, some open and some underground, where LGBT people gather and socialize. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Political campaigns

Do politicians take annual leave to campaign before elections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.190.183 (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The pre-election part of a politician's job is campaigning, though usually not annually. If they leave during that part, they don't come back. They usually have whole teams working, so incumbents can relax a bit if there's some urgent government work to do, but in a way, they never stop. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

So they don't have to ask for time off work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.190.183 (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Who would they ask? They were elected to lead. Though if you mean new candidates, it's best they leave their old job before they start. Inspires confidence that they'll get the new one. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

In the UK, once parliament is dissolved prior to a general election (which happened on Monday 30 March 2015), there are no MPs. The cabinet still exists, but is expected to only make decisions of national importance. The (former) MPs, however, are still paid until election day (Thursday 7 May 2015). LongHairedFop (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Election voting in the uk

When people vote in the UK, do they vote for the party they support or the mp? I know the ballot paper lists MPs but which do people generally think in terms of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.190.183 (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's usually the party, but some MPs are popular or unpopular out of step with their party's popularity. I'd be interested to know if there's any research on this, though. Officially, we vote for the MP: an MP who crosses the floor does not lose their mandate. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The funny part is, if there is research, it'll be flawed by the same party bias it's trying to find (or hide). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

Some MPs have a strong personal vote, so when they step down, the party's vote changes at he next election. The ballot paper lists both candidates' name and parties' name, but pre 1960 (or so), only listed the candidates' name. LongHairedFop (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

April 10

David Cameron question

Is David Cameron circumcised or uncircumcised? 117.168.228.228 (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

Who cares and why? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Even without looking, I'm fairly certain that the condition of David Cameron's penis is not a matter of public record, so the question is unanswerable. --Jayron32 12:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I gave it a Google. Your hunch checks out. The context I found suggests asking him personally won't get a straight answer, either. No matter how a politician phrases it or whatever the climate, talking about his dick will come out wrong in the media. Even Bill Clinton, given every opportunity, kept the finer points to himself (unless you trust The Onion). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:08, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

Why David Cameron (Tory Leader)? Ed Milliband (the Labour leader) has Jewish heritage, and has said the he is a Jew. I don't know if it is on public record that he has been circumcised, however it is very uncommon in Britain, except for religious or medical reasons. LongHairedFop (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Anecdotally, the operation was supposed to be more popular with the upper classes in the UK, see Circumcision is one of the oddities of the Royal Family. Alansplodge (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Even more anecdotally, at school I had to share showers with several future peers, and can confirm that a surprisingly high proportion of them (after adjusting for religion) were circumcised. Not that I was particularly looking, you understand... RomanSpa (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

In somewhat of a contrast, in the American Midwest, so many of my generation had been circumcised that seeing one that wasn't looked weird. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Turtlenecks weren't that popular in America during the 20th century, apparently... --Jayron32 17:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

What are the dropout rates of school children in Guangdong and other provinces in China?

I like to know what are the dropout rates of school children from Guangdong Province and Guangxi. Which grade do most of these children start dropping out from schools? Please provide me with some sources of reference. Sonic99 (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A question for territorial evolution

I am working on a rewrite of Territorial evolution of the United States and am including all of the territories this time around. This leads to an interesting situation: During World War 2, when do I consider a region as disputed/occupied? This is not a war map, and I have no interest in including lines of combat and control (if I did, the 1860s would have day-to-day changes and ... just no.) This is a political map. Here's what I've come up with so far in searching for an objective, solid measure to go by:

• For nations occupying U.S. territory: If there is at least a nominally civilian government installed, or if there is ever a government in exile, then it will be included. This allows for the Philippines but omits Guam, Attu and Kiska. And it of course allows for the CSA. (Why government-in-exile? That would only occur for a major occupation of a major place. So, not a small island and not a purely military target.)
• For the U.S. occupying other nations: This will be included solely if there is at any point in its history a civilian administration. That is to say, either the region gets representation in Congress (like the modern territories), has a governor appointed by the civilian structure of the U.S. government (like the earlier territories), or is under administration of a civilian department (like the insular areas). Regions purely under a military occupation, with no presence in the civilian structure of the U.S. government, will not be included. This means Germany, Okinawa, Korea, Haiti, Cuba, Iraq, etc. would all be omitted. No one would say Iraq was U.S. territory, but some have said that could apply to Okinawa.

Basically, again, this is not a war map, and I'm not going to follow the lines of combat and control, hence the reliance on there being civilian control at some link in the chain.

My main concern is Guam - that's the only one I'm really waffling on here. To include occupation or not to include? My thought is, would I include Guam on a map of Japan? And I don't think I would, it never having been annexed. Yet it had no civilian government either. So who would I label as the administrator? Any thoughts? I don't know if this is the best place to ask but I watch this page and it seemed at least vaguely relevant. :) --Golbez (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

To be clearer here, you're including Unincorporated territories of the United States at any time in history, excepting those which were purely under military control at a time of war. Is that correct? If that is the case, Guam qualifies, it was a U.S. controlled territory prior to WWII. The U.S. took control of Guam from Spain in 1898 and received rights to it as confirmed by the Treaty of Paris (1898). Thus, from 1898 until the Japanese seized it in 1941, Japan then lost it in the subsequent recapture of it. In my decidedly layman's understanding of international law, Guam would have been a recognized territory/possession/etc. of the U.S. from 1898 to the present day, the occupation by Japan during WWII would not have been seen as a legitimate administration thereof, as the U.S. never ceded the territory to them, as had been done in the Treaty of Paris. Thus, the control by Japan was just, as you put it, "lines of combat and control" and not legal, recognized possession thereof. --Jayron32 14:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. Guam is of course being included; my question is, at any point in the 1940s do I label it as "Guam (Japan)" or "Guam (Occupied)" and give it the 'disputed region' color? I am doing that for the Philippines because there was an actual competing civilian government that controlled the country for several years, so that was truly a case of 'claimed by US, administered by someone else'. But Attu and Kiska had no government at all during that time, just foreign military occupation, so that shouldn't be included. Guam, unfortunately, falls squarely in the middle of these easy extremes - it had a not-insubstantial civilian population, but during wartime it appears to have been completely a military occupation, with no civilian governing structure. I don't want to omit it unless I can find no objective way of including it, but I don't want to include it based on a subjective "well it seems like I should" if that means I have to include all wartime occupations. --Golbez (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I deal with this problem a lot in my real job. For maps covering areas controlled by states (basically the entire world since about 1890), you want to choose a cartographic criterion that allows you to assign every territory clearly to one state or another. Depending on your criterion, you might want to allow a category for disputed control. For every map, you have to pick a single, consistent date; otherwise your map contains anachronisms and conflicts due to change over time. Then you have to choose a criterion for assigning territories as of that date. Your criterion, which I'm not sure I understand but which requires a functioning civilian government specific to each territory and which shows the allegiance of that government, runs into problems during wartime, when there are territories that have no functioning civilian government. Which areas have functioning civilian governments is seldom the main concern of map users. The cleanest and most comprehensive criterion, and the most informative one, is de facto control. Then, for dates during wartime, you really do have to show lines of control. If you are trying to do a time series, you just have to offer a series of snapshots. Unless your resources are unlimited, there is no way that you can produce enough maps to capture the daily shifts in territory. During World War II, you might pick a series of key dates, with maps showing areas of control after various turning points. Marco polo (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm concerned with the civilian thing because this is purely a political map. It's the evolution of the borders of the country. And a handful of times, those borders have overlapped with others' borders, and that has to be acknowledged, but I wasn't sure if Guam counted as 'overlapping borders'. --Golbez (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I've got it, and it is objective but not symmetrical:

• For the subject of the map (in this case the U.S.) occupying other lands: Rely on the same civilian rules as above.
• For the subject of the map being occupied: Include the dispute only if 1) there is a civilian administration, 2) there is a government in exile, or 3) there was a surrender. The first one includes long-term deals, the second one includes major falls, and the third one keeps this from being day-to-day movements, and also prevents uninhabited lands or partial occupations from being included. So in that case, Guam's occupation would be included on this map, but would not, for example, be included in a map of Japan for the same time period. I'm good with this. I'll work with it and see if any issues pop up. --Golbez (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Golbez, as I see it, you're merging two issues: occupation and alternate political control, and they don't necessarily go together. For example, did Japan consider Guam to be US territory that they were occupying, or did it annex the territory or grant it independence? This happened in the Philippines, but I don't know where else. Or look at the North African territories that the US and UK conquered in Operation Torch: they weren't annexed, but considered still to be French. Again, this happened in Poland, but not in France. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, the logic is, if Japan annexed Guam, that would obviously be mentioned as conflicting borders; if they granted it independence, that implies a civilian government and thus would be mentioned. But neither of those happened, which is what is complicating things. And yes, it happened in the Philippines which is why I've always been solid that the Philippines will be marked as disputed. :) I think this new logic will work, only real way to find out is to try and see if any holes appear. --Golbez (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Why does it matter if Jesus was married or not?

I have read over the Wiki article on Christian Views of Marriage. One section is "Jesus on marriage, divorce and remarriage." Within that section the following is noted: "There is no evidence that Jesus himself ever married, and considerable evidence that he remained single." So, this led me to wondering why it is so important in more traditional Christian practices that Jesus was single and HAD to be. It is sort of like whether or not Mary (mother of Jesus) remained a virgin all her life or if she and Joseph had a sexual relationship. To me, what difference does it make in the scheme of Salvation, etc. if Jesus was married or if Mary remained a virgin (OK. two topics. Sorry). 216.223.72.182 (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Simple answer: Because sex is sinful, and Jesus was without sin. As was Mary, at least at the time she conceived Jesus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Mainstream Christianity has never held that sex per se is sinful. Some Gnostic or Manichean variants may have held that view, and Paul seems to dance around the idea at times, but never affirms it outright.

I think a more standard answer would be that a wife and a family would have interfered with his ministry. That seems to be analogous to the Catholic justifications for priestly celibacy. --Trovatore (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

First, it is important because in Judaism, in which he was raised, you are supposed to marry, so it is important to know whether Jesus was a "good Jew" and got married or not. If he wasn't married, that can be used as an argument against his being a "good Jew", and, in fact, that has been an argument against him in the past. Another related matter, as per The DaVinci Code, is that a "good Jew" not only married, but did he have kids. So, the question of whether Jesus had kids is also important relative to his Judaism, and, of course, knowing whether they were conceived within or without marriage would be important as well. And, of course, a third question, just how "divine" would children of a (maybe) God be?

It is of course worth noting that the Christian choosing to neither marry nor have kids seems to have been first arisen in the Abrahamic families with (maybe) Jesus and Christianity, and it has become a bit of a unique characteristic of Christianity, with the later development of monasticism. But the primary point of interest is to determine just how closely Jesus did or did not adhere to the Jewish convention of having children. John Carter (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

An answer you'd hear from typical USA evangelicals would be something like: The Bible doesn't say he was married, so he wasn't. This relies on the (probably reasonable) assumption that Jesus's marriage would've been mentioned if there was one. (Obviously it also relies on the assumption that the Biblical story about Jesus is accurate.) Staecker (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• There are two different concepts getting intermingled here. Jesus as a historical and living human (and rabbi) figure and Christ the Savour on which the faith and new testament is founded upon. It does not matter what relationships that the real man that Jesus was. This prophet (Jesus or more properly Ἰησοῦς) was born several years before the conjunction that that gave raise to the astrological new age (there was no 0 BC). Mary represented the Egyptian virgin earth. Don't confuse historical real people with the idolized concept of perfection – it will screw your mind up.--Aspro (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It "matters" because Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh (author) wanted to make money selling a book about made up bullshit and later, because Dan Brown is pretty ignorant about Christian and Gnostic doctrines on marriage and the Incarnation.

Re marital matters: The first thing God tells Adam and Eve is have kids. The relationship between God and humanity is regularly compared to a marriage, even by Jesus. Jesus liked kids way more than I do. Early Christianity didn't have a problem with married sex, just objectifying lust and extramarital sex. The Gnostics, however, were opposed to procreation, because that was trapping souls in more matter. The Gnostics even denied that Jesus had a body, and so would have been way more pissed at the implication that Jesus had children. Sex as some metaphor for spiritual enlightenment? Sure, the Gnostics were down with that (so long as the imagery was so hallucinatory that you knew nothing happened). But giving the thumbs up to having children was more of an Orthodox/Catholic position. Because of that, the early Orthodox/Catholic Christianity actually would have been the biggest proponents to Jesus having kids if they had had any evidence to support it.

Re the Incarnation: Jesus is referred to as the Son of God because God's role as savior (God the Son) and God taking human form (the Incarnation) derives from God's role as creator (God the Father), not out of any sort of belief in a Hercules-style demigod. His kids would not be God, any more than Jesus's mother or siblings would be half-God by association.

Re evidence or lack thereof for Jesus being single or married: The Bible is pretty silent on a lot of aspects of Jesus's life. Given that Jesus regularly preached about focusing more on being a loving person than following religious laws, it would have been a bit hypocritical of the New Testament's authors to spend a lot of time focusing on personal details that people could confuse for some divine example to follow. I mean, "love thy neighbor" somehow resulted in the Crusades and the witchhunts, so how the hell would humanity have handled knowing that Jesus's preference on cats vs dogs, or which vegetables He didn't like? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The Marriage at Cana is regarded as theologically important because it's where Jesus performed his first miracle (turning water into wine). But there are some who believe the marriage was Jesus's own, to an unnamed bride. The argument goes that all his other miracles were about healing people or a demonstration of his divinity to his followers, but in this case he was supposedly simply a guest at an obscure wedding and was not doing any active teaching, preaching or proselytising, so that would have been a strange place to start making the world sit up and take notice of him. Hence, the argument goes, the real reason for his presence at the wedding was something more basic: he was the groom. Besides, why would Mary his mother tell the attendants to do whatever he said when they reported they'd run out of wine? Why would they not be under the control of the bride's family and/or the groom's family? Why would they be reporting to Jesus and/or Mary at all? Unless ... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

" What difference does it make in the scheme of Salvation, etc. if Jesus was married or if Mary remained a virgin?" For modern theology, by and large, none at all (though the Catholic church insists that Mary remained a virgin all her life - a position not held by the Protestant and Orthodox branches). At the time of the early church and right through the Middle Ages, quite a lot. From the 1st century on, Christians saw sex as sinful, since sex transmitted original sin. For that reason Christians were advised to refrain from sex, and to marry only if they couldn't achieve celibacy. In the Middle Ages, sex between married couples was very strictly constrained (not on holy days, not on Sundays, not at Easter, etc etc). The body itself was held to be evil and shameful. A whole theological system was built around the sinfulness of sex, and only in quite recent times has that begun to break down.PiCo (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Back to the original question: have you seen Bride of Christ? Several different biblical passages, in particular the one linked at the beginning of the section "Comparing the church to a bride", speak of the Church as the "Bride of Christ"; this mystical concept completely falls apart if he literally had a human wife. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

True. And priests and nuns also talking about being "married" to the church. The Church therefore appears to be a bisexual polyandrist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Which is why all of that stuff should be taken as a metaphor. "Jesus couldn't be married because He is married to the Church" is internally inconsistent (can't be married and is married are incompatible). "The spiritual relationship between Jesus and the Church is comparable to a marriage, regardless of Jesus's historical marital status" is internally consistent. Jesus being married would no more invalidate His relationship to the Church than the earth not being a raised platform invalidates the unsatisfactory and transient nature of our mortal existence. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Nothing contradictory about "mystically married to the Church, so he couldn't be literally married to a human". The concept falls apart if there's a human who already had claims on him, or if he married a human when the Church already had claims on him. Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• To the original question, I think you'll find a diversity of opinion within Christianity on the question. There are certain nondenominational doctrines which hold "Speak as the Bible speaks, be silent where the bible is silent" which hold that open questions not mentioned in the Bible remain open questions. Since the Bible doesn't say that Jesus is or isn't married, the question is unanswerable, and such doctrines would hold that one cannot say one way or the other, and as such, doesn't matter one way or the other. On the other hand, other denominations say that because it doesn't say he was married, it must mean he isn't. Without regard for which is right or wrong (which as a meta-question, is entirely unknowable), just know that Christianity doesn't speak with one voice on the matter. There are Christians who say he definitely wasn't married, Christians who say he probably was, and Christians who don't know and are okay with not knowing. Christianity is a diverse faith. --Jayron32 03:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Jail holding cells in the 1930s/20s?

If someone were to be arrested for a minor crime in the 1930s, what would the jail cell they would immediately be taken to look like? What would be inside said cell? 76.216.209.128 (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a bunk inside, I would think. They would therefore need a jailer to take them to the toilet, or maybe use a bucket. The bunk would likely be attached to a wall, with only the bedding removable for washing. StuRat (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the first holding cell that one would enter would be extra large and not for overnight stay thus no bunk bed. Other individuals might be in the cell too, probably for unrelated types of crimes. It would merely be a holding cell for the duration of the processing of paperwork by prison staff. There might be a ledge running the perimeter for seating. It would likely be un-upholstered. There would be a minimum of privacy in such a cell because all walls might be of steel bars. This would be a cell that is transitional between an entrance to a facility and its inner areas. Though not for overnight stay it would be possible for the processing of paperwork to take several hours. Such a cell might be transitional for those being processed into a facility as well as those being processed out of that facility, thus it is possible that those entering could be meeting those exiting. It would probably take longer to be processed in than processed out. Bus stop (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There must be lots of old films that show that type of cell on YouTube, but I can't think of any at the moment. A common meme was that a weedy guy would get arrested by mistake and put into a holding cell with several large and violent looking criminals and then upset them by saying the wrong thing. A modern example is Trading Places but there are others from earlier decades. Alansplodge (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Louis Theroux: Miami Mega Jail has a few scenes like that. Not old, but that part hasn't changed. Here, he learns about "the paint". InedibleHulk (talk) 14:45, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

“In the old jail, when I talk about ‘linear,’ you’d have cells and cages and bars and those big Folger keys you see in the movies,” she said. “You’d go around every 30 minutes, but what do you think was happening the other 29 minutes we weren’t standing there? The weak guy was losing his lunch, people were being assaulted. By the time we come back around after 30 minutes, they were all sitting there playing cards getting along and you might have one guy in the game scuffled up saying, ‘I need out of here.’ But that was the old jail and the old philosophy of a linear system.”

Now, assuming it doesn't fail 70% of the time, 24-hour surveillance keeps prisoners (and guards) much safer. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:34, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

This will vary enormously depending on where in the world you are interested in (as it does today) and there will also be enormous variation within any given country. Here are some pictures: 1910, Minnesota USA, 1923, Bavaria Germany, 1923, St. Louis USA, 1924, Baltimore USA, 1930, New York USA, 1932, Bombay India, 1935, Los Angeles USA. 184.147.117.34 (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Basic cookbook written in Italian language

Does anyone know where I should look in order to find a basic cookbook written in the Italian language? I did some internet searches and basically only came up with cookbooks written in English for making Italian meals and such. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

You could try typing "ricette" (recipes) in the search box of amazon.it. Cfmarenostrum (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There may not be as many basic cookbooks, for Italians, as you might expect. This is because it's assumed the basics would already have been learned just by growing up in an Italian home. (I don't believe they have the large portion of "non-cooking" households that the US has, for example.) So, it would be a bit like a US book explaining how to order a pizza. StuRat (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Try looking for "Ricettario", the Italian word for "cookbook"; I found several results on Amazon.com. You can also run a Worldcat search: just find the relevant subject heading (it's "cookbooks"), go to Worldcat's main search page, click "advanced search", and specify "cookbooks" in the subject dropdown and Italian in the language dropdown. You'll get more than 100 results; some of them are bilingual English and Italian, but some are only in Italian. Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

April 11

Hume on EM spectrum

I've come to learn that David Hume's theory of knowledge essentially outlines that perceptions take two forms, impressions (sense experience) and ideas (memories of these experiences). He explains that all knowledge derives from these ideas and impressions, and more importantly, if anything is not derived from any sense impression, it is meaningless.

Now, Hume passed away in 1776, so he would not have been aware of the discovery of infrared radiation (which of course is not visible to the human eye) in 1800. We know (assuming a non-skeptical approach) that the visible spectrum is just a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum, the range of all possible frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. This radiation can be detected by machines, and there is good reason to believe they exist (e.g., the use of radio and X-ray machines), yet we cannot perceive them, and we cannot have impressions of them. My question is, would Hume contend the EM spectrum beyond the visible spectrum does not exist? That other wavelengths of light are meaningless? 74.15.20.253 (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. We cannot speculate as to what a dead man brought back to life would say. μηδείς (talk) 05:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough; may I rephrase the question to "what would a supporter of Hume's beliefs on impressions and skepticism respond?" 74.15.20.253 (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I can't say what a Humean would say either. But, frankly, I think Hume's doubt of things like causation and identity is puerile and manifestly insincere. He didn't refuse to be paid for his books because he couldn't be sure he was still the same person that had written them. He never once acted as if his conundrums were actually real. That speaks volumes. He was a sophist, pure and simple.

There would be two answers to a Humean skeptic of the infrared. First, that if one understands the nature of the device used to detect infrared rays, one reads that device with one's senses, and one's understanding of the device comes from one's senses, even if integrated over time. Second, infrared heat can be felt with the skin, even by the blind who cannot se a fire, or stove, or the sun. That knowledge would be direct.

I have never met a Scott I didn't like, but Hume and Kant are two of them. For your sake, I hope this is not your homework. μηδείς (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You must be referring to Hans Kant, the Scottish-born paternal grandfather of the German Immanuel Kant. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Equestrian statues with female riders

What is the oldest equestrian statue with female riders?--95.247.25.222 (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is actually the oldest one, and I'm not sure if you count statues that no longer exist, but apparently there was an equestrian statue of Cloelia in Rome (noted by Plutarch and Pliny among others). Adam Bishop (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably not the oldest, but there is a statue of a Nereid riding a horse dating to c. 380 BC. Edit: This one appears to be slightly older, but is very incomplete. - Lindert (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)