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

November 4

Hiroshima apology?

Have americans ever publicly apologized to japanese for Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings? like the senate did for slavery Kooz (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The US Government certainly hasn't. The prevailing opinion in US government and military circles seems to be that the bombings were a necessary evil (when compared to the invasion of Japan) so I don't think any such apology is likely any time soon. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in population in general, some 60% of Americans still think Hiroshima was "the right thing" to do. Only 1 in 5 think it was "the wrong thing" to do. (The rest are undecided.) So says a recent poll, anyway. Polls, of course, aren't everything. But it is a pretty common sentiment in the US that there is nothing to apologize for—that the Japanese "brought it on themselves" (Pearl Harbor, etc.), that it was "necessary to end the war", that it "saved millions of American lives," and other common phrases (the veracity of which have been in debate since they were first suggested, but that's a totally separate question, and one in which we have a nice, long article on). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I will check the news archives. I would like to start looking in the year that the U.S. received Japan's apology for the Pearl Harbor attack. Anyone know when that was sent? It had not happened by 1991, the 50th anniversary of the attack. Edison (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of people across Asia who would feel quite offended by a US apology for the nuclear attacks... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? TomorrowTime (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

In Korea, for example, the nuclear attacks are seen as a Very Good thing, because it stopped the Japanese, who had taken over their country rather brutally. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

In WWII Japan invaded China in the Second Sino-Japanese War. Millions and millions of Chinese were killed, most notably as a result of Unit 731s activities and in the Nanking Massacre.

I realise that, but saying that the death of thousands of civilians is something that an apology for would be offensive just seems... petty, to say the least. Surely you can see that if a Japanese person said they would be offended by an official governmental apology for Nanking, Unit 731 and any other in the long, long line of atrocities they commited during WWII, that would be the worst possible stance to take. (And yes, I do know that Japan started the war - I just think that for instance the school children that died in the H-bomb attacks had little to do with that.) TomorrowTime (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Many countries (including many in the US, but also in Asia) saw the A-bomb (not H-bomb) as that which ended the war and Japan's ability to occupy their lands. They saw it as a generally good thing. (As for civilians... that's a bigger debate. The Japanese did not care about the civilian/military distinction very much, and neither did, frankly, anyone else in the war when it came to bombings. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - the European theatre involved lots of attacks on civilians. No single attack comparable to the nuclear attacks on Japan, of course, but the total numbers of civilian deaths aren't entirely dissimilar. --Tango (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Those numbers (from 1991) are quite interesting. I'm surprised by this part: "...only 16 percent of Americans favoring an apology. The proportion of Americans who would favor apologizing for Hiroshima rose to a total of 50 percent if Japan apologized for Pearl Harbor, however." That's quite a jump! I am surprised at the number of Americans who (at least in 1991) would have be fine with an apology if the Japanese apologized first. I would not have expected that to matter much, but I guess it does (or did). --Mr.98 (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Why should American apologize? War means retaliative death. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get into an argument over whether they should or not, or whether Hiroshima was justified, and etc. If you really have no clue, read the article I linked to about the debate. Nobody on this board is going to say anything new in that regard, and we don't need to start an endless debate. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Negative view in U.S. multiculturalism

How is multiculturalism is view in United States in negative way? How about in a positive way? is there any websites that deals with this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.32 (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

See Multiculturalism#Support_for_multiculturalism and Criticism of multiculturalism, for starters. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

For a negative, I'd say that multiculturalism can be viewed as reverse discrimination -- sort of a bad thing from the perspective of those who are not part of the overemphasized cultures. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confusing multiculturalism with affirmative action. They are not the same thing at all. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've seen presentations of multiculturalism that emphasize strategies that could be called reverse discrimination without being affirmative action, e.g. they've claimed that multiple studies have demonstrated that minority children perform better on standardized tests if there are images of members of their minority group present in the room. The implied actionable outcome of such studies is that we ought to have more images of minority members present in the school room. To many majority group members, this is viewed as reverse discrimination since wall space is a scarce commodity (placement of an image of say a prominent black figure will likely replace a prominent white figure) and they view the reason for the placement of the minority group member's image does not solely depend on that member's accomplishments, but a combination of their accomplishments and their race. The integral connection between the race of the individual and their presence on the classroom's wall is therefore viewed as reverse discrimination. I am not advocating any position here (and do not wish to debate the pros and cons of multiculturalism as some amorphous blob), just pointing out it may not due to confusion over issues that multiculturalism is viewed as reverse discrimination.--droptone (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, I think you're conflating something else with multiculturalism. There are criticisms of multiculturalism, to be sure, but that it is reverse discrimination is not really one of them. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

For cultural non-members to be socially coerced into celebration of cultural heritage or significance is dicriminatory, albeit politically correct. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

...Um, no. There is no actual discrimination taking place. No one is being denied anything. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

... what? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

So, you're against a single culture having social or official weight behind it so that cultural non-members are socially coerced into celebration of it? Like Christmas and Easter? Or are you against other cultures having their celebrations mentioned? 86.142.224.71 (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Negative view in Canada multiculturalism

How is multiculturalism is view in Canada in positive way and negative way separate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.32 (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Essay questions are intended to assess your own grip on the material. The Reference desk can't write your essay.--Wetman (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith and refer the questioner to the responses to his or her question above. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Multiculturalism in Canada would presumably be the best place to start. If you are a Canadian high school student, you will have also learned the myth of the Canadian Mosaic. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I would invite you to visit Richmond or Surrey before you dismiss it wholly as a myth. Vranak (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Turkic World in Toronto

Is there any Kazakh community, Turkmen community, Uzbek community and Kyrgyz community in Toronto according to 2001 and 2006 Canada Census? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.32 (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's Statistics Canada's census pages. The data should be there; I don't have time to look right now. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

See also City of Toronto demographics - you can browse ward by ward for ethnocultural profiles. There's also an Uzbek restaurant in Toronto: [1]. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

John II's nephew?

Something is amiss. In the article on John II, Count of Holland it says Floris V, Count of Holland is the nephew of John II. In the article on Adelaide of Holland it says Floris V is her nephew. Adelaide is the mother of John II. Explain please.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Floris V is the son of William II of Holland, who was Adelaide's brother. Thus he is definately her nephew. Since John II is Adelaide's son, that would make Floris V the son of his mother's brother, and thus his first cousin, at least in THAT family. It is entirely possible that Floris could also have been John II's nephew on the other side of the family. John I of Avesnes, John II's father, had only one brother that I can find, one Baldwin; that would mean that Floris would have had to have been Baldwin's son in order to be considered John II's nephew on that side of the family. However, we know this not to be so. It looks as though the article may be in error unless someone else can come up with a better explanation. --Jayron32 14:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I just thought of another possibility. If this article, or some of its source material, had been translated from another language, it may be using the word "nephew" in a more general sense. In many dialects of English, for example, "Cousin" can be a general term from any blood relative not otherwise described by a different name. The term Cardinal-nephew for example, does not mean that the person so designated was the actual son of the Cardinal's brother/sister; merely an undesignated relative of the Cardinal. So, the term nephew in this case could be being used generally as "relative" rather than specifically as "sibling's son". --Jayron32 21:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it be proper then for someone at this point to change "nephew" to "cousin", since it looks like that was the intent? --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed "nephew" to "cousin" for Floris V in the article on John II, Count of Holland as that appears to be more correct.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Floris V, Count of Holland

Part 1: If Floris V's father was William II of Holland, then who was his mother (spouse of William II)? Why did Floris have to go under guardenship of Adelaide of Holland when has father was killed in 1256 when he was two years old? Was not his mother around? What was her name? Officially married to William II?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Part 2: If Adelaide of Holland was Floris' guardian from 1258-1263, I assume his uncle was his guardian from 1254-1258. THEN, who was his guardian between 1263 and 1266 when he came of age? --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Part 3: Did Floris V have another name he was born with before he got this title? If so, then when were the names changed? Apparently Floris IV was his grandfather, correct?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

For details on Floris's genealogy, have a look at this site. His mother, to whom William II was married on 25 Jan 1252, was Elizabeth of Brunswick-Luneburg, who died 27 May 1266. According to the biography there, "Floris was born on 24 June 1254, the son of Willem II, count of Holland, who was elected German king (emperor-elect) in 1248, and was killed in battle in 1256 by the Frisians when Floris was just two years old. First his uncle Floris 'de Voogd' acted as his regent. When the latter was accidentally killed at a tournament in 1258, his aunt Aleida became regent of Holland from 1258 until the Battle of Reimerswaal (fought over custody of Holland) in 1263, when Otto II, count of Gelre served as his guardian until Floris was considered capable of administrating Holland himself. In 1266 Floris was declared to be of age when only twelve years old." As to why his mother was not regent, I have no idea, but it's not all that uncommon for a regent not to be a parent.

The relationships between Floris V and his 3 regents (Otto II of Gelre was a cousin):

1  Otto I, Graaf van Gelre  b. Abt 1150 d. Aft 30 Apr 1207 & Richardis von Scheyern-Wittelsbach b. Abt 1173 d. 7 Dec 1231

2  Gerhard, Graaf van Gelre  b. Abt 1185 d. 22 Oct 1229 & Margareta of Brabant  d. 5 May 1231

3  Otto II, Graaf van Gelre  b. Abt 1215 d. 10 Jan 1271 &  Margareta von Kleef  d. 10 Sep 1251

2  Aleida van Gelre  b. Abt 1187 d. 4 Feb 1218 &  Willem I, Graaf van Holland 1203-1222 b. est 1170 d. 4 Feb 1222

3  Floris IV, Graaf van Holland 1222-1234  b. 24 Jun 1210 d. 19 Jul 1234 &  Machteld of Brabant  d. 22 Dec 1267

4  Willem II, Graaf van Holland 1234-1256, Emperor-Elect  b. 19 Jul 1227/3 October 1227 Leiden d. 28 Jan 1256 &  Elisabeth von Braunschweig-Lüneburg  d. 27 May 1266

5  Floris V, Graaf van Holland 1256-1296  b. 24 Jun 1254 d. 27 Jun 1296

4  Floris 'the Regent', Regent of Holland 1256-1258  b. Abt 1228 d. 26 Mar 1258

4 Aleida van Holland  b. est 1230 d. 1 Mar 1284/9 April 1284 & Jan I d'Avesnes, Count of Hainault b. Apr 1218 d. 24 Dec 1257

- Nunh-huh 10:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nunh-huh for the information. Now I know his uncle was Floris 'de Voogd' and Otto II of Gelre was a cousin. Did not know it's not all that uncommon for a regent not to be a parent, so that answers that. His mother, Elizabeth of Brunswick-Luneburg who died in 1266, might be the reason why he became "of age" so young at the age of twelve in 1266. Great information!--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Part 3: Did Floris V have a birth name other than this and if so when did he take on this "official" name?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

John I of Avesnes

The article on John I of Avesnes says ...John and his brother Baldwin undertook to receive imperial recognition of their legitimacy and did so from the Emperor Frederick II in March 1243. Is there details anywhere as to what it took for John I to get his legal rights for inheritance that happened in 1243? What procedure and how often did he have to see Emperor Frederick II before he was intitled to his legal rights? John I of Avesnes died in 1257. John II, his son, ultimately became Count of Hainaut and Count of Holland, through his mother since he ultimately had legal rights to inheritance, in 1299 upon the death of Floris V's son.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be a bit of plagiarism from Genealogics' page on John, which has used since 1997 the same phrase added here on 17:03, 8 July 2006. (I've added the page now as a source rather than allow the plagiarism to continue.) Anyway, that page doesn't have the details you ask for, but does have subsequent historical details. - Nunh-huh 10:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

did Hitler know allied countries would consider his murderous actions evil?

did Hitler know that the allied powers would think his murderous actions (specifically concentration camps) would be evil? If so, why didn't he "get rid" of the people he murdered by just shipping them somewhere instead, dumping them on an allied power's lawn like the police in rich neighborhoods will sometiems take the homeless and dump them in the slums just to get rid of them. Sorry for the naivete of the question, but I just don't see why Hitler or the Germans wouldn't have anticipated how evil their murderous concentration camps would make them seem in the eyes of other countries, even if they were total psychos who felt no remorse over the action itself. Even a cold, calculating psychopath knows how certain actions that don't bother his conscious personally would make him seem in the eyes of others, and so avoids doing those things. Why didn't Hitler avoid murderous concenctration camps based on the same principles, even if he didn't actually have anything like a conscience? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.146.7 (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There were early discussions, continuing from the 1930's through 1940, of moving the Jews to some small and inhospitable country such as Madagascar, rather than killing them. The colonies of conquered European powers could be used for resettlement. Himmler wrote that "the physical eradication of a people" was a bolshevik behavior and un-German. Establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was discussed by the Nazi leaders but rejected.This was seen as something to be done after the war, since transport overseas for 4 million or more people would have been difficult in wartime, with the superiority of the British navy. Edison (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Was the assumption that England would... attack the transport ships? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That would not matter, what would matter is that those ships would not be able to be used for moving war materials and troops if it were carrying refugees. Googlemeister (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Even when they had an inkling they were losing they wanted Germany to have no Jews after the war. They were driven by efficiency considerations in carrying out their aims, not by fear of the allies. Dmcq (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

you've answered half my question, guys, but you didn't address a kind of basis I had for the question, which I also put in questuon form: did Hitler and the Germans think that the allies would consider their murderous camps 'evil' (obviously they themselves did not, or they wouldn't have done it). 85.181.146.7 (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I have no support for my belief, I would believe that Hitler thought the rest of the world would have thought it evil, or he would not have tried so hard to keep it secret. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about this, I'm not sure that German has a word that is quite equivalent to the English word evil. The German words that could carry this meaning, böse and übel, don't have the same intensity, I think, because they have other, less intense meanings. For example, böse means naughty or morally bad. When a child is scolded, he may be told that he has been böse. Übel means nasty or offensive, such as a foul smell. I think that neither concept may have the same absolute quality as our evil, such that a German would feel shame or recoil from the thought that others might consider their actions böse or übel in the way that an English speaker would react to the thought that another person might consider his or her action "evil". As for why the final solution was kept secret, I don't think that we have to include Allied reaction as one of the reasons. I think that the Nazis were probably more concerned about destroying their legitimacy among elements of the German population who might be offended, such as liberals (in the European sense of the word) and devout Christians who weren't also anti-Semites. Marco polo (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Marco polo, your knowledge of the German language is sadly... lacking. Try 'schlecht', 'krimminel', 'verbrecherisch' (especially the last one, comes from the the term 'Verbrechen') before jumping to certain conclusions. To be honest your idea that the Germans were somehow unable to feel the same degree of "shame or recoil" because their vocabulary is a bit different only shows that you know precious little about the German language and people in general. Flamarande (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Once they found the war in the east was unlikely to be won, the SS went to great lengths to exhume corpses already buried and incinerate them[2].Alansplodge (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Amory - the RAF did in fact attack and sink a shipload of 7,000 concentration camp prisoners in 1945[3] - not our finest hour.Alansplodge (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt the Nazis cared (ed: as far as the moral justification of genocide goes) whether other countries thought the death camps were evil. Any dedicated Nazi who supported the death camps would presumably label critics as "Jew-sympathizers" and therefore not worth listening to. Have you read the Untermensch article? Under that philosophy, many Nazis thought genocide was OK. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

They hid what was really happening from the Red Cross inspections. They cared what other countries thought of them even if only for selfish reasons ("if the other countries discover what we are doing they will redouble their efforts to fight us - and use the concentration/extermination camps as justification and propaganda"). Flamarande (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. For some reason I had interpreted the OP's question along the lines of, "The Nazis should have realized it was evil and stopped due to the probable reaction of other countries", which is not what the OP was asking. Sorry. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that they incinerated corpses not out of shame but for sanitary reasons. Thousands of corpses decomposing in pits at Maidanek were probably considered a public health issue. I don't think that the Nazi command began to accept until well into 1944 the likelihood of defeat, but the use of crematoria began well before then. Marco polo (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but have a look at this[4] and [5] and [6] and [7].Alansplodge (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The high command was aware that they were in serious trouble after the battle of Stalingrad and after D-day, at the latest, they knew that they had lost the war. You have to realize that Hitler and his inner circle were the true power and they weren't not interested in surrendering.Flamarande (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The answer to the original questions is: "Yes, he knew and that's one of the reasons he tried to hide it. However he believed that he would win the war and therefore his efforts to conceal it were not enough. If Hitler had won the war the Holocaust would be probably erased from all records and all evidence would have been destroyed." Flamarande (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not possible to know whether Hitler knew it or not that the Allies would consider it evil. There is evidence to the contrary. Indeed, Hitler expected anyone to hate the Jews as much as he did. Equally, it is not possible to know if most Germans believed they would win the war. Considering that they expedited their efforts to kill more and more Jews towards the end of the war, there is also here evidence to the contrary. If they thought they would win the war, the annihilation of Jews - and other people - would not be an urgent task.Quest09 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

Hitler knew very well that the allies (and I dare to say the majority of Germans) would be horrified by the final solution. Why do you think it was done in (relative) secret and in a need-to-know basis? Why did they use excuses like "deportation" and "transfer to the East"? If Hitler truly believed that everybody else hated the Jews as much as he did he would do it in the open. Please read carefully what I wrote: I never wrote that most Germans believed that they would win. I wrote that Hitler believed that he would win the war (there is a major diff between the two, you know?). Flamarande (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Concentration camps were by no means secret - even if the details were secret - the German government used the concentration camps to terrorize its opponents (communists, socialists, Jews). It was a collective effort that required the cooperation of many thousand people and the passivity of many millions. Furthermore, I didn't say you suggested "German believed they would win the war." I simply don't draw a wall between the German government and the German people, since I am not German and I am free to believe that Hitler was a product of the masses. Of course, there is an alternative view to this. Some historians do believe that history is shaped by the actions of great men (in the sense of influential). However, I stay by the side of Herbert Spencer who believed that "that attributing historical events to the decisions of individuals was a hopelessly primitive, childish, and unscientific position." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So the concentration camps weren't secret but only their details? Well, it is all about the details. You are certainly free to believe what you want to believe, but please notice that the reasoning of Herbert Spencer fails to explain Jesus, Muhammad, and Gengis Khan (and many others). Leaders matter; they might require certain circumstances but they have a decisive influence upon history. Flamarande (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel that I stand corrected. It does seem that there was a campaign to conceal directed by Himmler. @ Flamarande, I was thinking to myself, "Wait a minute, the word evil doesn't have a direct translation in German." So maybe the Nazis wouldn't understand what it would mean to foreigners to see them as evil. I agree that it was a bit of a myopic thought. A phrase like böse und verbrecherisch would probably have an intensity similar to the English evil. I didn't mean to imply that all Germans lack a moral sense (though clearly the Nazis were gravely deficient). Marco polo (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, just be more careful with such conclusions. The Nazis (and Hitler in particular) were fanatics; they believed that "a Greater Germany, a Jew-free Europe, and the destruction of Communism" was a heroic ideal, worthy of every sacrifice. Flamarande (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I do believe Marco polo has a valid point here: your native language makes you construe the world under a different perspective. If for example, you lack a word like "Nibelungentreue", a word meaning intense loyalty and with historical and cultural connotations, you probably would have more difficulties expressing that you demand "Nibelungentreue" from your followers. Quest09 (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

you're right, but there's a more pressing reason I can't communicate that to my followers. 85.181.150.186 (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

But your native language will (almost) assuredly have similar expressions (the English equivalent would be: "absolute loyalty unto death" - or something similar). And we are not dealing with a people and culture from completely alien culture. We are dealing with a people sharing the same Christian/Western morals. There are some (minor) differences between a German and a British or a French but all of them know what is wrong and what is right (under the Christian/Western POV). What is a crime against humanity and what isn't. You might argue that the average Japanese soldier (during WWII) had a different world-perspective "Serve the emperor (a true living god), fight until death, death before dishonour, etc) but not the average German soldier. Flamarande (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but we're talking about Germans here, not some sort of isolated tribe... they certainly know right from wrong, and have concepts to express how horrible and uncivilized people can be. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Each people has different ways of defining what is right and wrong. And each one have different ways of evaluating things. If you trust the highest authority, and this authority is wrong, as was the case of the Germans, then you'll get a big mass of people committed to a destructive enterprise. If you were taught to question authority and to be skeptical, you won't get that amount of momentum.--80.58.205.99 (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

But most European/Western cultures/peoples share the same basic principles and morals (there are certainly some diffs but they share the same basics ideas). And yes the majority of Germans would/will rather obey the lawful authority, especially during wartime. Don't ever forget that it was war, and during wartime the majority of us will stand united behind the (rightful) government (unless it is a full-scale civil war - in that case you will fight for your own side). Flamarande (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, most peoples share the same basic principles. That makes the III Reich even more appalling. Individual Germans could come to the conclusion that what was happening was wrong. Nonetheless, Germans were astonishing passive as their society turned into a machine of destruction. And not only of Jews, but of many other groups, added to the material destruction and the irreparable destruction of culture. Quest09 (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That makes the III Reich so appalling and, quite frankly, so interesting. Remember that some individual Germans tried to stop it. However the majority of us will obey the rightful and lawful GOVERMENT (passivly or not). Especially during wartime; most of us will stand behind it and support it.

And it isn't a case of "German exceptionalism" (granted: they went much further than anyone else). The decision of the US goverment to put its own citizens of "enemy orgins" into concentration camps was also obeyed. Who knows how further it could have gone? Flamarande (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The German people as a group could be said to have been "passive" about what was going on; but for many, perhaps most, individuals, the reason they didn't do anything was that they were afraid, and rightly so, that any counter-action on their part would mean death not just for themselves but for their entire families and various others they were associated with. It's one thing to risk your own life in a noble cause; but nobody has the right to risk the lives of others, particularly people for whose welfare they have a responsibility. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)The question and some answers may share to some degree a misconception. There is no question that the Allies knew of the exterminations and condemned them during the war. See note 45 of this 1944 book by Raphael Lemkin. Hitler simply didn't care. From his POV, he was defending Germany from the Jews and Allies who had evilly embroiled Germany in another war, and was punishing what malefactors he could, as he had announced in a famous speech before the war.John Z (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Please notice that the book was written in November of 1944 (the war was already in its final stages). I read the note (45) and it doesn't mention the knowledge and condemnation of the allies at all. Some government officials (of the Allies) knew about it, but many more didn't believe the reports. Your statement that "Hitler simply didn't care" is faulty (we could even say that it is OR). Hitler hid what was happing inside the camps. His reasons were selfish: "if the other countries discover what we are doing they will redouble their efforts to fight us - and use the concentration/extermination camps as justification and propaganda", but he cared just enough to hide it.

Read the article Holocaust: "The BBC and The New York Times published material from the Vrba-Wetzler report [only] on June 15 and June 20, 1944". It can be argued that Hitler's efforts to hide the extermination were largely successful from 1938 until late 1944. Flamarande (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Lemkin's note refers to a statement that was published by the allied governments in December 1942. Here is the front page article in the New York Times on it. See also this. I used it because a while ago it was the only free source on the net for the full statement, haven't checked more recently (The linked version of Lemkin has a typo, 1943 for 1942). Are you looking at the same note? "The above-mentioned governments and the French National Committee condemn in the strongest possible terms this bestial policy of cold-blooded extermination." does not mention "knowledge and condemnation of the allies" at all? There is no serious question that there was widespread publicity during the war about the exterminations. If our Holocaust article suggests otherwise, it is wrong. Of course it took time in wartime conditions for the (full) truth to be known, and Hitler did not go out of his way to publicize it. A recent book that emphasizes how much publicity there was is Robert Rosen's Roosevelt and the Jews, with a preface by Gerhard Weinberg.John Z (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesus man, you wrote: "There is no question that the Allies knew of the exterminations and condemned them during the war. See note 45 of this 1944 book by Raphael Lemkin". I checked note 45 it and found: "The Jews for the most part are liquidated within the ghettos, (45) or in special trains in which they are transported to a so-called "unknown" destination". The note itself doesn't mention any knowledge and condemnation of the Allies at all. Now I know better, (the Allies knew it since 1942 at the latest, and had condemned it), but you gave the wrong evidence before. I amend my previous statement: It can be argued that Hitler's efforts to hide the extermination were largely successful from 1938 until late 1942. Flamarande (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

By note 45 I meant the actual note at the bottom of the page, which has the full statement, not the passage that referred to the note.John Z (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a detail missing here, perhaps a result of Anglocentrism in the discussion. I think Hitler (or other high-ranking German officials at the time) were not very bothered by what their enemies (i.e. the Allies) would think of them. Not that they didn't care at all, but they would probably be able to brush off any accusation from Washington, London and Moscow as propaganda. Nor would they have been bothered by the prospect of being put on trial after a defeat (their expectation was that they were going to win the war).

However, they were of course highly interested in not affronting the opinions of their own allies. Had the full extent of Holocaust, and the detailed planning behind it, been publicly know then the willingness of other countries to aid the German war effort would have diminished. Fascist Italy did not support Antisemitism at the time of the outbreak of the war, for example. A neutral country like Sweden (exporting iron ore and steel to the German military industry) would have difficulties maintaining military exports. Not to mention the German public, who's support Hitler needed. Furthermore, remember that Hitler often thought of how he would be portrayed in history, he was obsessed with the idea of being the founder of a 1000-year Reich. The Holocaust would, even in a Nazi history discourse, have posed trouble to that image. --Soman (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Soman. Hitler "cared" about it, just enough to conceal the extermination. He knew that it would be judged a crime against humanity and he hid it. Flamarande (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

And how do you expect to conceal moving millions and millions of people around? It would have been utterly impossible. Hitler could only conceal to the general public the details of the extermination. Hidden the details of any military operation is strategically essential for it and this could be his motivation. Hitler could also have hidden some aspect of the holocaust to avoid the psychological shock upon his soldiers, like he had done earlier, when he chose this killing method to reduce the impact on the executers.

It is also not possible to say Hitler "cared" about the opinion of others or that he knew it would be judged a crime against humanity. The concept of "crime against humanity" was not entirely new at the time of the holocaust. However, it was not a mainstream concept. The concept of crime against humanity was finally defined by the Allies in the Nuremberg Charter (1945). Before that, people used the expressions “crimes or offenses against the laws of humanity" - a much weaker wording.

Already in 1920, Hitler talked about extermination. And the German people was necessarily aware that Jews were disappearing. People in Germany, in the best case, could speculate that Jews were being deported to the East and released there. However, that would also amount to murder, given the conditions there. Every one was aware of the intensity of the war on the Easter border of the III Reich.--Quest09 (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't move them at the same time and never at these numbers. The much weaker wording is irrelevant, Hitler knew that it would be judged as a capital crime. Deportation is simply not the same thing as extermination (and that's why 'deportation' was used - to try to hide what was happening). If, as you argue, the extermination wasn't a secret how come the victims (Jews, Homosexuals, Communists, etc) meekly obey? Or are arguing that the victims knew of their fate but choose to obey regardless?

If, as you argue, the extermination wasn't a secret, why did Hitler issue an order to keep it a secret (under death penalty - at least that's what this article says)? Let me guess: it was because "Hitler expected anyone to hate the Jews as much as he did". Therefore Hitler was convinced that the extermination would be considered a good thing and everybody (and the Allies too) would applaud it in the end? How about reading the articles Holocaust and Responsibility for the Holocaust and some others? Flamarande (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking for the outcome of a legal case (if it's publicly known)

Once on the news there was a story about a woman who had severely underdeveloped arms and did everything with her legs and feet who went to a McDonald's drive through and was humiliated by the employee there and not given her food. They said in the news piece that she was suing McDonald's for something like $2 million dollars (big surprise). I can't find anything on whether she won her case or not. Does anyone else know? 71.161.57.157 (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This news story was in 2007, looks like. Googling "dawn larson" mcdonalds yields about 2,900 links; all of them I saw were from 2007; maybe you can dig deeper. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

payment

what is the minimum wage per hour for a 19 year old per hour in the netherlands —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.118.126 (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Between €4.18-4.65. See pages 4&5 of this: [8]. Fribbler (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Title and Composer of Music in NFL TV Follies

What is the title of the piece of music on this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axaBG4t-gJs starting at about 2:50? And who wrote it? I tried "Name My Tune" and Musipedia to no avail. Thanks! Kingsfold (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

November 5

Multilingual legislatures

This is a vague question, but could anybody direct me to any resources that describe how legislatures are run in polities that have more than one (and particularly, more than two) official languages, such as the Swiss Parliament? --140.232.10.160 (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two possibilities. You either choose one language that everyone has to speak (I believe some African countries do that - they have local languages that have official recognition but use the language of their former colonial power (English or French, usually) for government business) or you have real time translation in the legislature (which Switzerland does [although it doesn't translate to and from Romansh, apparently], as does the European Parliament). --Tango (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The mother of them all: United Nations Interpretation Service. --Nricardo (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In Canada, members of Parliament can speak either English or French depending on their whim, and there are translators working whenever Parliament is in session. I don't know how many of them are actually bilingual, but most probably speak only English and some might speak only French. If you watch a session on TV you can see them hurry to put in their earpieces when someone starts to speak French. If you're actually in the building watching them, there are headphones so you can listen to the translators too (or at least, there were when I was there, but that was almost 20 years ago...) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In areas of high linguistic diversity, there is a working language for the legislature in which business is done. All people who are in the legislature will use that language. Other languages that have official status can be used when a speaker does not have competency in the working language and an interpreter is used to translate their words for the benefit of the rest. I don't have a particular resource for that. South Africa is another area where this is likely to be a strong issue. Occasionally it is used as a political statement, to use an official language despite competence in the working language, for example Welsh in Wales, or Maori in New Zealand. Steewi (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, in multilingual countries there might be a strong tradition for "passive" competence in several major languages, I think this is the case in Switzerland (ie an educated person is likely to understand all three major languages even if she can only speak one of them) Jørgen (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In Ireland's Dail (parliament), some mischievous members insist on speaking Gaelic, knowing full well how few of their colleagues master it! Rhinoracer (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The Scottish Parliament has held some debates in Gaelic. --ColinFine (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Does the Knesset have translation capability for their Arab members? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Although Arabic is an official language of Israel, Arab Israelis generally know Hebrew. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong uses English and two Chinese dialects (Cantonese and Putonghua). DOR (HK) (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

They use headphones. Channel 0 is untranslated, 1 is Cantonese, 2 is English. (Yes I watch Legco on tv.) F (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You have my deepest sympathies ! DOR (HK) (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

In Luxembourg, French and Luxembourgish are used in parliament, with French the official language for parliamentary documents, laws, and court proceedings; parliamentary proceedings are also published in German because it's more widely understood than French. (Multilingualism in Luxembourg) has a little info; see also [9].) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesleyhood (talk • contribs) 16:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In New Zealand, all MPs speak English fluently, but some speak Maori as a matter of principle, and some do it to filibuster (because it is consecutively translated), eg on the bill setting up the Auckland Council. F (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

From my understanding, pretty well all federal MP's in Canada are bilingual--at least the important ones. Those who need translating get it. I believe one can ask a question in either English or French, and the other can answer in the other language, though I suppose it's polite to answer in the asker's language. I'm not sure how in goes in the legislatures of Quebec, New Brunswich, or the 2 territories--other than Yukon. These might help: House of Commons of Canada#Procedure, Official bilingualism in Canada, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Akwesasne.Civic Cat (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Orlando Navy Exchange

In 1999, NTC Orlando was closed, but the Navy Exchange remains open today. Is the exchange now subject to state inspections (such as FDACS Food Safety inspections), or is it still governed by the DoD? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Unable to afford shoes

Hi,

Can you tell me how many people in the world are unable to buy shoes because they cannot afford them? (an aproximation will be fine)

Many thanks !  :)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.203.169 (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think many people cannot acquire footwear. Used footwear is probably plentiful, and relatively available, relatively inexpensively. But I am just guessing. Bus stop (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Some people who are not able to afford to buy shoes may make them,like the Chinese slippers made of scraps of cloth and glue and sandals made from old tires.If your question is about who is going barefoot you may need to phrase it differently...hotclaws 12:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"like the Chinese slippers made of scraps of cloth and glue and sandals made from old tires" - you just described my last two dollar-store purchases! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.150.186 (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I find that my footwear made of old tires gets great mileage. : ) Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hotclaws is right that people who cannot afford mass-produced shoes can and do make their own footwear. This is very common in Africa. Also, in the poorer parts of the world, there are sandalmakers and maybe bootmakers using inexpensive or recycled materials who make footwear that is cheaper than the Chinese manufactures that we tend to wear in the more developed countries. The percentage of the world's people who absolutely could not afford footwear if they needed it is probably quite small. (Of course, in poor countries with warm climates, people may choose to devote their scarce resources to things other than footwear, because going barefoot is a reasonable option.) Marco polo (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

One example: Flip-flops (though I know they aren't always considered proper shoes) seem readily available even in very poor areas. Flip Flotsam is a documentary about the fate of some of the 20 million pairs made every year in Mombasa, Kenya. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A Google search for images of tire sandals turns up an interesting array of images. Bus stop (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There are countries where people cannot afford animal dung to burn as fuel or to use as fertilizer, so there are people in the world who cannot afford even tire-tread shoes. ("Let's see: should I spend 10 cents for a piece of tire tread, or for enough rice to give the children a small supper and prolong their malnourished lives?") Edison (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

School comic book

In the fall of 1978, as I was in second grade, my teacher handed out this educational comic book on how to stay healthy. The comic book's main character was superhero-like. He was called "Health Man". I can't seem to find that comic book on the Web anywhere. Anyone else out there remember what I'm talking about?24.90.204.234 (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think comics like this have been routinely produced by city and county governments in the US for decades. Most likely the comic you remember was locally produced. I suppose it's possible that if you call up the county or city government you might find a record or an old copy of Health Man, though of course it might be difficult to persuade a file clerk that there's a pressing need for a file search. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of Sub-Saharan African Population

The population of black african countries are all estimates. How accurate are the african censuses? There are always wars, deaths and migration of people moving around Sub-Saharan Africa. How can they conduct population surveys in Sub-Saharan Africa? Is Sub-Saharan African population really less than expected? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

When demographic statistics are spotty, as they are in much of Africa, demographers take the most reliable data available for each of the main determinants of population (births, deaths, immigration, emigration) and extrapolate or interpolate. Where data are lacking, they may use proxy data, such as imbalances between exits and entries at border checkpoints, as a basis for extrapolation or interpolation. See this source for a discussion of some of the issues. Certainly, the estimates are not precise, but when more reliable data become available, earlier estimates are seldom gapingly wrong. The reason is that demographers working on a given country are aware of major issues affecting the population, such as war and disease, and make an effort to get data that will allow them to estimate the effects of those phenomena. Marco polo (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been hearing that black african countries lie about their censuses and overestimate their populations. If they claim they have more people in their countries, UN would provide more foods and medical supplies. If they claim their populatin is small, UN won't provide enough foods. This forces african countries to give false information about population. 174.114.236.41 (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Does Yoda have the FOXP2 gene?

Any body have any idea about it?--Gilisa (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) When Yoda died, his body became a force ghost, thus not being available for autopsy or DNA sampling, I would imagine. Given that Yoda was not human, it seems unlikely he would have a human gene. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The biology of extraterrestrials is an interesting topic which gets a fair amount of discussion. It's usually pointed out that there isn't a convincing reason that creatures which evolved on another planet would have the same genetic structure as us - they may not even use DNA as genetic material. For that matter, they might not even use the same basic amino acids and other biological molecules (e.g. eating an alien's food would probably give you a bellyache at best, and could possibly kill you) - the frequently discussed possibility is that aliens might use a different chirality of amino acids and carbohydrates, but it's possible that they may use completely different systems entirely. Having aliens interbreed with humans (e.g. Mr. Spock) is a very speculative concept - and usually has to be explained by some other alien "seeding" planets with the same genetic material. In the case of the Star Wars universe, I'm no expert, but I don't think anything has been said about the different types of aliens interbreeding. For that matter, since it was "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away", I doubt we could even say if Leia and Han Solo were genetically similar to modern humans. That said, in the usual contexts of discussion, FOXP2 is implicated in language development, and as Yoda can speak, he would likely have a gene which functions in a similar capacity. His Object Subject Verb word order wouldn't by itself be an indication that he has impaired language function, as that construction, while rare, is used in various Brazilian languages, American Sign Language, and even Yiddish in some instances. Mistakenly applying constructs and patterns from your native language to a second language is a common problem, especially for people who learn the other language later in life. -- 128.104.112.237 (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Plus, considering that Yoda is either a puppet, or a computer graphic, means that he likely doesn't have that gene. He doesn't really have any genes. His creator and portrayor do have genes, but as far as I know they have normal language skills. --Jayron32 18:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. If you stuck a needle deep enough into Yoda, you'd eventually come up with some blood that was very similar to Frank Oz's blood. APL (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"These are not the genes you are looking for."

Hilarious absurdity aside, I'll also point out that everyone has the FOXP2 gene - it's a mutation that Yoda could, in theory, have. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

... if you grant that Yoda has a human genome. APL (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

To what extent language is hard-coded and to what extent it is learnt is a question that has been debated quite a lot. Obviously the details are learnt, that much is obvious from the wide variety of languages in different societies. Some aspects might be hard-coded, which could mean mutations could result in people speaking strangely, but SOV word order does happen and native speakers of those languages have no difficulty learning other languages and vice versa, so it seems unlikely that it could be explained by a simple mutation. --Tango (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think even the more stringent advocates of a "learned" approach to language would argue that there isn't a lot of specific neural hardware made for language. (Things like Broca's area, Wernicke's area, point to that most directly.) I think basically everybody agrees that a large amount is hard-coded (there is an innate human ability to learn language, there are parts of the brain that specialize in language), a large amount is learnt, and the question is where specifically that boundary lies. It doesn't strike me as implausible that a single mutation that significantly affected connectivity or functionality in the language organs in the brain, even if one believes that much of language is learnt, though, yeah, whether SOV is affected by such a thing would seem to have strong implications for the hard-codedness of grammar in particular. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Question about Jeffrey Dahmer's conviction

He wasn't sentenced to death because Wisconsin does not have the death sentence. But he killed his first victim in Ohio, and Ohio does. Why wasn't he sentenced to death there, but he received a life sentence? --190.50.82.98 (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The Jeffrey Dahmer article (Trial section) mentions that he was extradited to Ohio, and entered a guilty plea. Usually the prosecution and defense arrange a plea deal, in which any defense lawyer worth his salt would ensure takes the death penalty off the table (otherwise, what benefit is it to the client to accept the plea deal?). As he had already been sentenced to 957 years in prison (i.e. he's never was going to be able to get out of prison), I assume Ohio really didn't have a good reason to push for execution, especially as they would have to pay for (1) the lengthy capital murder trial (2) appeals (3) imprisoning him for the duration (4) the actual execution. Even if Wisconsin strangely decided to let him out, Ohio would be able to imprison him on the guilty verdict. That, and they wouldn't risk him being declared not guilty on a technicality. -- 128.104.112.237 (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty good speculation, though it would be good to find a source for what actually happened and add it to the article. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's also of note that Ohio did not execute anybody between 1963 and 1999, according to this page. Why that is, I don't know (other than the legal difficulties discussed on that page, but they seem to have been resolved by the end of the 1980s), but it doesn't seem like they were very enthusiastic about capital punishment during that period. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

When Dahmer committed his murder, Ohio had no enforceable death-penalty law. The U.S. Supreme Court threw out Ohio's death-penalty law in 1978, and the new one didn't go into effect until 1981. In 1991, Governor Richard Celeste commuted all of the death sentences that had been imposed to that point, which is why there were no executions in the state until 1999. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In what year will he complete his sentence, and how old will he be? When could he get out with good behavior? What are the chances he will serve more years than William Heirens (who has served 63 years, so far, of a life sentence)? Edison (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, never mind, I see that Dahmer only served three years. A mere drop in the bucket. Edison (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

But he still never got out - at least, not alive. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless he has a rich uncle who can donate millions of dollars to a US President, who will then pardon Dahmer just before leaving office, as Bill Clinton did. StuRat (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) That's unfair—and fairly trolling. No president has ever pardoned anyone on par with a serial killer, and plenty of other presidents plenty of presidents of both parties have partied campaign contributors. Clinton's pardoning of Marc Rich is certainly controversial, but pardoning someone indicted for tax evasion is not comparable to pardoning a convicted and confessed serial killer. (I call it "trolling" because it is really just a hostile Clinton non-sequitur.) --Mr.98 (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Way too late for any but a posthumous pardon. Edison (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect; Bill Clinton did not pardon a serial killer — as far as is publicly known, anyway. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That just means that the price tag is higher to pardon serial killers. If we draw a curve on a graph showing the increasing cost of the pardon against the increasing severity of the crime, we can likely extrapolate to find the exact price of a pardon for a serial killer. StuRat (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, that doesn't actually make any sense. If you just want to espouse your political views please do it somewhere else. Rckrone (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's meant as a joke. Still, there's some truth to it. Perhaps a serial killer won't be pardoned anytime soon, but I'd bet that a future President would be willing to pardon someone guilty of more serious crimes, as long as they are paid more, in turn. There is a huge hole in the Presidential pardon system that allows this. Perhaps Congress should have the right to veto such pardons, as it would be much more difficult to buy off all the members of Congress (not because they are more honest, just because there's so many of them that billions of dollars would be required to do so, which few criminals could afford). StuRat (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There would be obvious political consequences for such a thing, as there were when Clinton pardoned Rich. (People got mad, and that does have a long term political effect, even if the given President is leaving office—especially if his wife is running for office later!) Anyway, "ha ha", great "joke", other than basically being trolling. Are you done, yet? --Mr.98 (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

November 6

Picture of Thomas Pynchon

Go to this article and scroll down to the picture next to #2. Is that Thomas Pynchon, and if so, what's the source of that photo? zafiroblue05 | Talk 06:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It is quite hard to compare pictures accross a person's life, and Pynchon is a noted recluse; not of the level of J. D. Salinger, but he's not exactly a "public" person by any means. He did several famous cameos in The Simpsons; and while it was his voice being used, his character in the show was shown with a bag over his head, playing on his famous avoidance of the media, somewhat ironically as he lends his voice to the most famous animated series, like, ever.

Most extant confirmed pictures of Pynchon are from his youth, like from High School yearbooks or his US Navy portrait. See this Google Image search. Since most of the confirmed pics of him are probably over 50 years old, its hard to say if that pic you cite is definately him. He didn't have a beard in his youth, for example, and while his youthful pictures seem to show a distinctive gap in his teeth when he smiles, any more recent dental work may obscure this in a modern picture. The picture you found actually seems to more closely resemble Gary Snyder, a friend of Pynchon, see this image and article, page down till you see the image caption. It looks a lot like the image you found. Indeed, searching google, I can't find anything more modern than 50 years ago. --Jayron32 06:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking closer, that picture you found is almost certainly Gary Snyder. See this Google image search for Gary Snyder. I would be 99% certain the pic in that article next to Pynchon's name is Snyder and not Pynchon. --Jayron32 06:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the person who wrote the article you cite obviously doesn't know what he is talking about, since he states that the Pynchon novel V. was the source for the V miniseries and subsequent sequels, which it obviously wasn't. --Jayron32 07:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the page also says that Lolita is a Russian novel and that Kafka (whose works were largely unknown until after his death, whereas the Nobel Prize is given only to living authors) should have won one. Clearly not a person to be trusted. Deor (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It also makes no mention of Henry James being an American, seems to think Joseph Conrad was Ukrainian, spells Kerouac Karouac, and puts an apostrophe in Finnegans Wake. In short, it's not to be trusted. 209.251.196.62 (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It also makes the uncorroborated and highly suspicious claim that Salman Rushdie didn't earn the Nobel Prize due to the controversy he stirred with the publication of The Satanic Verses. Actually, I always thought he earned more literary prizes due to the book. Quest09 (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the link provided in the OP is a perfect example of why one should never take anything on the Internet at face value. And that one should always verify such information using one or more other sources (like for example this great ref desk right here). --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Name that magazine article

I'm trying to remember the name of a certain article quite possibly from Esquire magazine. It's a critique of the sensationalist "Pedophile-hunt" TV shows such as "To Catch a predator". The most prominent feature was a picture of a like sting in a snowy woods with wolves standing in for the production crew. Can anybody name the article or at least the magazine? Thanks. Spade9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

cult religion

problems posed by cult religion inthe society —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.204.168.3 (talk) 10:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a homework assignment, which we do not do for you. Check out Cult and Cult (religious practice) to start. Falconus^{p t c} 12:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, be more specific. Your question (?) is put very broadly, and it's hard to figure out exactly what it is you want to know. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a subject for a seminar work. Too broad to be answered I guess....But you can start with the Falun Gong and continue to scientology.--Gilisa (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The problems are going to depend greatly on the specific cult and the specific society. You have not provided either of those pieces of information to us, so we will be unable to be much help I am afraid. Googlemeister (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

For example the definition of cult can also be a political thing, for example in the case of Falun Gong, according to the United States State Department, in China, whether or not a group is classified as a cult depends on the Chinese authorities and is "based on no discernible criteria other than the Government’s desire to maintain control." [10] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Cult suicide (Jim Jones, Order of the Solar Temple); cult murder (Charles Manson's followers); cult biological and chemical terrorist attacks (Aum Shinrikyo, Rajneesh movement), prostitution (Flirty fishing), odd financial dealings (International Society for Krishna Consciousness. From the opposite side, moral panic. Rmhermen (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

insufficient problem posed question context answer difficult Dmcq (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

On the plus side, cults do tend to increase the sales of athletic shoes and Kool-Aid. :-) StuRat (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

US military deployment policy

Due to the latest massacre at Fort Hood, we're forced to look again at the US policy of deploying people to fight against those of their same religion and/or ethnicity. Has the military ever had, or at least considered, a policy of transferring/deploying such people into other regions, such as Japan or South Korea, where there will be no question of mixed loyalties ? An exception might be made for linguists, as a shortage of those who speak the native language but are not of that culture is likely to exist. Perhaps they could work from the US via teleconferencing or, if necessary to be deployed in the field, they could be unarmed (basically like Iraqi or Afghan nationals who work as translators).

So, I would like any info or links on such a policy discussion. Thanks. StuRat (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I know they certainly had such a policy in WW2, where those of Japanese ancestry were only permitted to fight against the Nazis and the Italians (see 442nd Infantry Regiment (United States)). Now it would probably be labeled as racism or something. Googlemeister (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Fort Hood incident, I think a combat stress psycologist would be exactly the kind of specialty that would be required to deploy, just like a linguist. Rmhermen (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure they need combat stress psychologists, but there's no reason to think they can't find a combat stress psychologist who isn't of the same religion and/or ethnicity as the people we are fighting, thus creating the problem of divided loyalties. StuRat (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. military has not allowed soldiers to choose which wars or which enemies they would fight. Edison (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that they should have the choice, the military should refuse to assign them to locations where divided loyalties are likely to become an issue. StuRat (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, why should it make any difference. Assuming the U.S. military has done sufficient background checks, why would it matter about the religion or ethnicity of its soldiers. The U.S. has no native ethnicity (unless you count Native Americans, but they really haven't ever been ethnically "american" either, just that they were native to the land that later BECAME the U.S.); all Americans are essentially imigrants. German-Americans most certainly fought against Germany in WWII; seeing as they are the largest single ethnicity in America it would have been impractical to ban them from fighting on that front. The whole "banning the Japanese Americans from fighting on the Japanese front" was part of the same Xenophobic racism that caused the creation of Japanese American internment camps. The fact remains that there was never an effort to create a German-American internment camp because Germans don't look any different than other white people, Japanese do. It is nothing besides a coincidence that the nutjob who shot all those people at Fort Hood was a muslim or of muslim decent. General John Abizaid, former commander of CENTCOM was of arabic decent; I have no idea what his actual religion was, but no one doubted HIS ability to lead in Iraq and Afghanistan. --Jayron32 17:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I found that John Abizaid's father and grandparents were Lebanese Christian and he has appeared on a Christian talk show as a Middle East expert, but I didn't find any definitive on his religion. Rmhermen (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your point generally, but there were camps for German Americans, though on a much smaller scale to the Japanese ones. --Sean 17:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe the claim that German American citizens were rounded up and interned like the Japanese American citizens, since I know a great many many German American citizens who lived through WW2 in the US without any problem. Certainly German citizens were properly interned. German American citizens were routinely drafted and fought against the German army in Europe. The article cited is poorly referenced. One ref is to a website of a group which claims such internments took place, and another is to a defunct inoperative reference. Edison (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"It is nothing besides a coincidence that the nutjob who shot all those people at Fort Hood was a muslim or of muslim decent"—not necessarily true. Much is yet to be learned about this incident, but one aspect that has come out in the reports is that he sympathized strongly with the idea that Muslims were being persecuted by the United States in its War on Terror, and that he himself felt he was being harassed because of his religious beliefs. That does not support the idea that Muslims in general are untrustworthy, but it does indicate that his religions/ethnic affiliations may have played a part in all of this other than "coincidence." --Mr.98 (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

His personal experiences because of his religion may be being used by himself to justify his own actions, but to state that because this muslim went nuts and killed all those people that somehow all muslims must be suspect and under more strict scrutiny in the armed forces is pretty much bullshit. Any after-the-fact justification offered by this asshole for killing all of those people should not itself be taken as an indictment against people of the same religion as him. Using the facts of a person's life to "justify" an horrific act doesn't mean that people with similar experience are more likelyt to commit a similar act. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is still a fallacy here. --Jayron32 19:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"It is nothing besides a coincidence that the nutjob who shot all those people at Fort Hood was a muslim or of muslim decent" — you do not know this and should not be asserting this. "To state that because this muslim went nuts and killed all those people that somehow all muslims must be suspect and under more strict scrutiny in the armed forces" — only you have proposed this. Why such hyperbole? Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

IT was the OP that stated that "Due to the latest massacre at Fort Hood, we're forced to look again at the US policy of deploying people to fight against those of their same religion and/or ethnicity." In other words, because a muslim committed the massacre at Fort Hood, the U.S. cannot trust muslims to fight for them in muslim lands. If the OP didn't mean that, he shouldn't have said that. --Jayron32 01:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I don't believe you will even find the word "Muslim" anywhere in my initial post. As I already stated, if we were fighting in Tibet, then I'd be worried about soldiers of Tibetan descent and/or the Buddhist religion, due to the same conflicting loyalties. StuRat (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think we agree on the main points. I do think one could make an evidence-based argument that being a member of a certain religion raises one's risk factor in regards to being treasonous (in the same way that being a compulsive gambler makes one a better target for potential espionage recruitment), but one case does not a trend make. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt that 99% of soldiers remain loyal to the military despite being of the same religion or ethnicity as the people we are fighting, but that doesn't mean we need to accept the increased risk posed by the other 1%. I believe 5 British soldiers were just killed in Afghanistan by a member of the Afghan military they had taken in as a liason: [11]. Also, I recall that during the second Gulf War there was a similar incident where a Muslim solider tossed a grenade into a tent and killed some soldiers in Kuwait. So, it certainly looks like a trend to me, not a single isolated incident. StuRat (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The question is not whether multiple muslims in the U.S. military have committed acts of atrocity. After all, multiple christians have done so as well. The question is whether or not the proprotion of atrocities committed by muslims is out of proportion to their overall representation in the military. A collection of anecdotes about muslim soldiers going nuts and killing their comrades is not a statistical study. For all we know, muslims may commit LESS such acts of horrific violence in the U.S. military than their non-muslim counterparts, we just don't know absent any sort of actual controlled study or analysis of actual data. Regardless of the claim, multiple isolated incidents does not a trend make. I could just as easily cherry pick a series of atrocities committed by men in the military who are shorter than 5 foot 6 inches tall, and make some equally outrageous claim about how short people show a trend towards violence. Cherry picking anecdotes is a bad way to support a hypothesis. --Jayron32 21:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

...not to mention the fact that they may, through better intercultural understanding, keep more people from being killed. If 5% of your Shai-Hulud worshippers go nuts and kill an average of 20 friendlies, but the other 95% manage to keep the local Fremen quite, you will still come out ahead. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to think I'm saying that Muslims are more likely to go nuts, per se. No, I'm saying that Muslims deployed to fight other Muslims (or about to be deployed, as in the Fort Hood incident) are more likely to switch sides than Christians. Similarly, if we were for some reason about to attack Tibet, I'd want to avoid sending any Buddhist soldiers there. Now for the statistics part: I can't recall any recent incidents of a Christian of European descent in the US military "going nuts" and killing a dozen people. I'm sure there are far more of them in the US military (probably at least 10 times as many), so I'd expect far more incidents, if it was just as likely to occur in either group. StuRat (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not assuming that. I'm not even assuming that they are more likely to "switch sides" if they are deployed to Iraq or elsewhere. I'm say that even if you grant such an assumption (for the sake of the argument) you may still come out ahead if you keep them in the force if you do a deeper analysis. I also think generalizing from a set of one is pointless, or each of Lynddie England and Charles Graner would imply that you cannot send any troops without massively violating human rights. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't notice my indentation. I was responding to Jayron, not to you. StuRat (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did, but I assumed you just missed a colon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Now, as to your point, there are certain jobs, such as a linguist, or more broadly, a "cultural emissary", where having a background in the culture is desirable. However, for the majority of jobs where there is no advantage to be of the same culture as the enemy, why risk it ? In this case, why does one need to be a Muslim to be a good combat stress psychologist ? StuRat (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Everyone you send abroad is a "cultural emissary", and you want all those people to be aware of local culture because that might be the difference between the locals becoming friends, neutrals, or enemies. We very much do not want to make this a conflict between "the west" and "the Muslims", but rather keep it a conflict between a free, tolerant and enlightened society and a group of backward fanatics (ok, we may need to work on that enlightened aspect on our side....). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea for all of our soldiers to have cultural contacts with the natives. Most soldiers, working in support positions, should be kept on base. This would include a "combat stress psychologist". Only those who need to have contact with the natives should, and they should be well trained in how not to offend them. If you have people who are going to get all bent out of shape if they ever see the bottom of your shoes, then we need to limit contact to only those who know this and all the other little traps out there. And, considering the risk of soldiers being captured and later beheaded on the internet, they better stay on base for their own safety, anyway. StuRat (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Back to the original question, does the US military not have certain jobs that require background checks? And do those background checks not sometimes include whether they hold other citizenships, or have in the past? For example, might they stop a naturalized Chinese-American from working on certain military technologies the Chinese government might well be out to acquire through espionage? Sure this is under a different name, but it seems the same logic used regarding the Japanese-Americans in World War II, keep them away from things where divided loyalties could do a lot of damage. TastyCakes (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no answer, but wanted to point out your example isn't a good one because your naturalized Chinese-American used to, ostensibly, be loyal to the government of China, whereas the WW2 Japanese-American case relied on racial ancestry to determine one's loyalty. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

How about an American born Chinese-American that holds Chinese citizenship as well, or maintains close ties with China? I'm sure it would be done on a case by case basis rather than the blanket decisions of World War II, but doesn't such "discrimination" sound possible? TastyCakes (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that the US military doesn't seem to worry about discrimination in other areas, like prohibiting women from serving in combat roles and discharging any "outed" homosexuals. In this context, discrimination for the goal of avoiding massacres seems acceptable. StuRat (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to use the word in its most literal sense, not with the baggage it has acquired. As in having "discriminating taste". I don't think I object to this kind of discrimination in sensitive jobs either. TastyCakes (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are background checks for many military jobs. Yes, nationality and religion probably matter, as would your political ideologies and other personal factors. Yes, they'd be suspicious of Chinese-Americans applying to work on military technologies. (Cf. the Wen Ho Lee bruhaha). Whether these policies have accomplished much is hard to say—for things like espionage, a great deal of spies in recent years have just been motivated by money, not ideological or national loyalties. Extreme profiling has a negative effect as well (see e.g. Tsien Hsue-shen). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's of note that the day after the Fort Hood tragedy, another shooting spree has occurred, this time apparently by a fellow who ostensibly looks quite Caucasian. Do we feel the same way that we do about this Muslim fellow? There is a similar dearth of facts in both cases, but the directions our minds jump do tell us something about our prejudices. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What incident is this ? Do you have a link ? Is it another shooting in the US military where a dozen people were killed and dozens more were wounded ? StuRat (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's on CNN—Orlando, FL, etc. Does it matter if it is in the military, per se? Does the efficacy of the attack matter? (He shot about half a dozen people.) The point is—there are nuts with guns out there in the world. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does matter if it's in the military, since this Q is about the problem of sending people to their ancestral homeland to fight against their own people. How does some random shooting outside of the military relate to this Q ? I don't think it makes sense to just say "all shootings are random, so there's no way they can be avoided". There are many ways to help, such as avoiding triggers, like soldiers with divided loyalties, or high school students who are ruthlessly bullied with no action taken against the bullies, or postal worker/veterans with post traumatic stress disorder being put under an abusive boss. Many of these shootings could be avoided with a little common sense. StuRat (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying, "all shootings are random," I'm saying, isn't it interesting that we are jumping to conclusions about the motivations of this particular shooting rather rapidly. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have posted on the internet, praising the bravery and self-sacrifice of suicide bombers, so it looks like the initial assessment is correct. StuRat (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: I would very much like to be able to get some statistics on "soldiers who betray other soldiers" in the US military. Could I get a list of recent incidents and then maybe break it down by the religion and ethnicity of the perps ? StuRat (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This WSJ article touches on the subject with recent attacks but is not comprehensive; it does say such killings were "far more common" in the Vietnam War, but cites no sources and names no numbers. (I think you may want to adjust for the claim that many soldiers killed their officers in Vietnam, as I think the motivations differ from what you're trying to get at.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that listed three incidents since 9-11:

1) The current Fort Hood incident, the murder of 12 soldiers, committed by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

2) The murder of 5 soldiers, 6 months ago in Baghdad, by Sgt. John M. Russell.

3) The killing of 2 soldiers in Kuwait, with a grenade, in 2003, by Sgt. Hasan Akbar.

If anyone knows of any other incidents, I'd like to know. Also, do we have info on what portion of the US military is Muslim ? Somehow I doubt if 2/3 of the US military is Muslim, to match the perps above, or if 14/19th is, to match the number murdered, but I'd like to know the actual numbers. StuRat (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

CNN was saying it was 3500. I'm not sure if they meant total with reserves (almost 3 million troops) or active (1.4 million), but either way it's a tiny fraction. I don't believe that includes translators and interpreters and stuff, who I think are classed as civilians on contracts. TastyCakes (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This story says the Pentagon says 3500 but that some Muslims in the military claim there could be as many as 20,000. TastyCakes (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, so we're approximately in the range of 0.1% - 1%. In that case, having two-thirds of the incidents coming from a group that small would seem to indicate that there is a problem, and it's not simply a coincidence. StuRat (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

A social scientist would say you can't tell anything from a sample size of three. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In a case like this we obviously don't want to wait until we have a sample size of 1100. If my math is correct, if you randomly choose 3 people from a population which is only 1% Muslim, the chances of two of them being Muslim would be 3*(0.01)³ or 3 in a million. In other words, it's not just random. While I agree that you can't determine the specific risk that a Muslim deployed to fight against Muslims will turn on his own men, from this, it's enough of an indication that there may be a problem that further study and actions should be taken. StuRat (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Your math is not correct. It's 3*(0.01)²(0.99) (or 3*(0.01)² for the chance of at least 2). Notice that you overstated the unlikelihood by a factor of 100. But bad math aside, this exercise is pretty absurd. Your "statistics" are the anecdotal reports in one newspaper article. As Mwalcoff said, three is not an appropriate sample to start drawing conclusions from. You may have heard it said before that two does not make a trend. Rckrone (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I used 3 instead of 2 as the exponent, which now gives me a 3 in 10,000 chance of this occurring at random. Still extremely unlikely. As I said before, it would be nice from a mathematical perspective to have a sample size of 1100 massacres to work with, but as a practical matter it would be absurd to wait for that. In the real world life-and-death decisions must be made with only partial information. One might as well have argued "well, Pearl Harbor was only attacked once by the Japanese, so let's wait until they do it a few hundred more times so we can gather valid statistics that we can then use to determine if our defenses are working or not". As for the accuracy of the newspaper article, it is a well-respected paper that I'm confident attempted to do the best research possible to find all pertinent cases. It's possible they may have missed some, and I've asked for info from any other sources to double-check them. However, until I find any info that conflicts with the newspaper article, I'm going to use their data as the best available. StuRat (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what statistics has to do with Pearl Harbor. What I'm saying is that it's not a useful tool here either. I'm not saying that there's not information to be gleaned from these events, but that information is not going to come from applying statistics. As for the WSJ article, it never claims to be an exhaustive list just three examples. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the WSJ, I'm saying there's something wrong with construing the article as something it isn't. Rckrone (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems unlikely to me that any recent massacres in the US military would have escaped the notice of the WSJ, and it also seems unlikely that they would have chosen to omit any from the story. StuRat (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I will say this again: I'm not accusing the WSJ of bad reporting. The article never says they are presenting a comprehensive list. In fact quite the opposite they present two specific prominent examples that serve as illustrations for how to categorize these incidents. The article does say that the death toll from incidents like this is believed to be "fewer than a dozen" and the cases they mention add up to 7 victims, so obviously there aren't more than a handful of other cases, but the potential max of 7 is quite far from 3. There's also the possibility of cases where soldiers attempted to kill someone. Rckrone (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say that it's impossible that religion played some role in some of the cases where soldiers have snapped. In fact there seems to be evidence that it did in both cases mentioned here. But the way you're trying to draw conclusions using statistics is not really meaningful. Rckrone (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the following is a valid problem for a statistician: "Given the assumption that an event has a 1% probability, but the measured results show that this event occurred in 2 out of 3 trials, what is the probability that this assumption was correct ?". I will cross-post to the Mathematics desk to confirm this. StuRat (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm , I can only wonder who will fight for the USA when the fight is against a "Christian country"? Only atheists, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists? That would make for a relatively small army indeed. Flamarande (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In such a case it wouldn't be practical to keep all Christians out of the combat area, but you could still keep those of the same ethnicity away. In the case of the war against Serbia, for example, we could have kept the Serbs home. StuRat (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, reply to StuRat) This is not a place for debate, but your argument demonstrates a fallacy for which there must be a term that I don't know. It is possible after any event or series of events to find something seemingly unusual about it and use it to claim it can't be random. Bill Bryson talks about how creationists do this in his book A Short History of Nearly Everything. Creationists will say that the chances of the human genome developing randomly out of evolution is one in a zillion, so it must be intelligent design. But the key is they're doing this in hindsight. The chances of an NFL game ending with a score of 21-13 is 0.25%, based on the compilation of historical scores at www.pro-football-reference.com. So the chances of three games in a row ending with that score is, if my math is right, one in 64 million. But if that happens and you look back on it, can you conclude that it's some kind of miraculous occurrence? Of course not. Now if you predict ahead of time that three games will end in that score and it happens, that would be impressive. But in hindsight, no. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that's a type of cherry picking. In the football games, for example, they just choose three games that happen to have the same score, and considered that to be the sample size, rather than including all the games in the sample size. In the creationist case, they just consider the Earth to be the sample size (of one), rather than all the planets in the universe. If I had, for example, looked at every army in the world and only found this pattern in the military of Poland, then set my sample size to just the size of the Polish army, then this would indeed be a case of cherry picking. However, I didn't do that. If you wish, we could broaden the sample to include each military from majority non-Muslim nations which employ Muslims to fight against other Muslims, and I suspect the results would be similar. StuRat (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about cherry picking. I'm talking about if you open the paper tomorrow and find all three games involving a given NFL division's teams ended in the same score, you can't call it a miracle, because you wouldn't be asking "what are the chance of that?" if it hadn't already happened. The license plate example comes from famous physicist Richard Feynman. Here's how Bryson quotes it:

• "'You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight,' he would say. `I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!' His point, of course, was that it is easy to make any banal situation seem extraordinary if you treat it as fateful."

Now had Feynman predicted he would see license plate ARW 357 and then saw it, that would be significant. But to look back on any occurrence after the fact and treat it as significant because it was unlikely to happen randomly is the fallacy I'm talking about. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, in the football example there's two different things going on, just considering the odds of those three games having the same score (not considering all the other scores that didn't have that score), and also looking for the particular score of 21-13 rather than looking at any score that's repeated 3 times. I still call that "cherry picking", because, just like only picking the ripe cherries, we've only picked the scores that seem like they show a pattern, and ignored all the rest. If we go back to my original Q, what is "all the other data that I'm ignoring" which would tend to disprove my assertion that sending people in to fight against members of their own ethnicity and religion is risky ? StuRat (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you're the one making the positive assertion. It isn't anyone elses position to disprove an unproven assertion. Its still just a hypothesis without sound data to back it up, and its an unproven hypothesis. You can't just make a hypothesis like "sending people in to fight against members of their own ethnicity and religion is risky" and then claim that it remains true until someone provides data to disprove it. If its true, then data will support it. It doesn't work the other way. One could make any random statement and say "its true unless you prove it false!" That isn't how it works!!! If it is true that it is riskier to send someone to fight against his historical ancestors, then where is the data which backs that up? And, remember, multiple anecdotes is not data... --Jayron32 20:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

are not data. --Tango (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Anecdotes" would refer to random bits of data someone thinks they remember, not facts, like the incidents listed. It may not be enough data for your liking, but, as I've said many times now, waiting until we have enough massacres so we have a "statistically reliable sample" isn't an option, so we must do the best we can with the data we have. StuRat (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how reliable the anecdote is, it is still an anecdote. To draw conclusions you need to know how many soldiers have fought against their own ethnic group, how many have fought against other ethnic groups, how many incidents that have been in the former group and how many incidents there have been in the latter group. We don't have those 4 pieces of information. --Tango (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What exactly would qualify as "data" and not "anecdotes", under your definition ? StuRat (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Something systematically collected from a representative sample and analyzed according to predetermined criteria would be a start. Otherwise, see Bible code. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"Sampling" implies that you're only looking at a portion of the murders, which is sure to introduce sampling error. Why not look at every case in the given time-frame, as I propose ? StuRat (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note the "representative". Of course your sample can be the whole population. But how do you get at "every case"? They may not all be published, or at least not be equally prominently published. That's exactly what causes (many) sampling errors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem of making a sample representative is completely eliminated if you use the entire population. Now, I'm sure that the US military keeps records of everyone convicted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, so the problem just becomes one of access. A Freedom of Information Act request could certainly be made, and I see no justification for a denial. So, I'm asking if some news organization has done this and now has the data we need to do a correct analysis. StuRat (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: I'd like a list of all convictions (and also charges) of murder under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, where the victims were fellow soldiers, after 9-11-2001. I've tried to Google it, but had no luck. In addition to the three massacres listed previously, I've found the following murders, so far:

4) Calvin Hill accused of murdering Ashley Turner to cover up theft from her: [12].

5) Jonathan Law accused of murdering a fellow marine: [13].

6) Kyle Dayton accused of the murder of Carl J. Ware, Jr: [14].

7) Jonathan Campos accused of the murder of August Provost: [15].

8) Richard Smith and Mathew Kvapil accused of the murder of Christina E. Smith: [16]. Article also mentions the (murders ?) of Megan Touma and Holley Wimunc.

9) Cesar A. Laurean is accused of the murder of Maria Lauterbach.

9) Various murders of women: [17].

10) 11 murders at Fort Carson: [18].

11) George Smith accused of the murder of Kerryn O'Neill: [19].

12) Murder of Ciara Durkin: [20].

These all seem to be single murders or murder/suicides, but what I'm really looking for is multiple homicides. StuRat (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

....and, no offense, but there is your cherry-picking. If the data does not support your conclusion, change the criteria until they do. Next, look at religiously motivated crimes... ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Any investigator could likely tell you that the motives for massacres are typically far different than those for your average single murder. And even if you include all those single murder cases which I just listed, it still doesn't bring the numbers of US military murders by Muslims anywhere near to being in line with the Muslim population percentage in the US military. StuRat (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That WSJ article I pointed to, btw, was the very flimsiest record you could have chosen for sample data. Reporters are lazy. You're correct that comprehensive data would be needed to try to draw any conclusions. Comet Tuttle (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Not the flimsiest, that would be using a scandal rag as a source. Now, I'm still asking how to obtain the comprehensive data. Can't anybody help with this ? StuRat (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

November 7

What were the basic personality types listed by Charles Fourier?

What were the basic personality types listed by Charles Fourier? I read that in designing his utopian communes, Fourier listed several types necessary on each phalanx/ What were they? --Gary123 (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a go, since no one else has, but I'm afraid this is only a partial attempt. At the bottom of our Charles Fourier article, are a bunch of links to his writing and writings about him online. For example, these ones are in English: [21], [22], [23]. He seemed to love classifications and categorizations, and had several systems - one categorized people by what they desire (usefulness, beauty, justice, truth and the divine), one categorized people into four groups (friendship, love, family and ambition) according to what their predominant emotions are, one predicted the progress of civilization over thousands of years in parallel to what he saw as the intellectual progress of invididuals over one lifespan, from interest in fantasy to interest in intellectuality to interest in passion and perfection, to decay. I'm afraid I couldn't unpack anything particularly Utopia-related but maybe since you know what you are looking for you'll be able to pick it out from this stuff? The google books link is the overview. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Business law: What does (KG) mean in bankruptcy filings?

What does the abbreviation "KG" mean in filings in U.S. Bankruptcy Court? It seems to show up a lot where a company declares bankruptcy along with its subsidiaries. They each get assigned a case number, but the case is usually jointly administered and when referred to in aggregate, is usually something like "123456 (KG)". I've been looking through different resources, but can only guess at what the KG means. Googling for {kg bankruptcy "case no"} shows plenty of examples.[24] Squidfryerchef (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It stands for "Kevin Gross".

At least, I think so. Here's how I worked it out.

First, I noticed that when I did the Google search you suggested, most of the cases were from the US Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware. That could be because a lot of companies in the US incorporate in Delaware, but it could be because this abbreviation means something specific to that court. So I went to that court's web site (deb.uscourts.gov) to see if I could find an explanation of it.

When I didn't find one, I decided to look at some other case numbers to see if (KG) was one of a series of these codes. I downloaded about 90 cases from the Opinions section of the web site and programmatically picked out the case numbers. About 50 had one of those tags, but there were seven different tags -- (BLS), (CSS), (JKF), (KG), (KJC), (MFW), and (PJW) -- occurring on anywhere from 1 to 16 of the cases I'd looked at. The fact that some of the tags had two letters and others had three suggested that they were people's initials.

I then googled for all of the above tags together on the deb.uscourts.gov site, hoping to find a table of the names. There wasn't one, but I did get a few hits, presumably opinions that cited a number of other cases by number. I looked at the first hit to see what the name of the judge on that case was -- and it was "THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER S. SONTCHI".

So that was (CSS) explained, and by googling on "the honorable" at that site, I was easily able to find several other names matching the tags: Judith K. Fitzgerald, Kevin J. Carey, Mary F. Walrath, Peter J. Walsh -- and Kevin Gross.

Howzat?

--Anonymous, 10:15 UTC, November 7, 2009.

More info on KG here [25]. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The case I was originally studying was presided over by that judge. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Billionaire lifestyle

Hello, can you give me a list/names of billionaires/multimillionaires who live lavish jet-setting free-spending lifestyle like Mikhail Prokhorov of Russia or Vijay Mallya of India? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aold1000 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Richard Branson? Guy Laliberte? Adam Bishop (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen our Billionaire article? Dismas|^(talk) 04:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Lewis Carroll quote

From Through the Looking-Glass:

• "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
• "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
• "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."

I want to be 100% certain that my understanding of the third line is "correct"/reasonable: To me, it means "The question is, who has the authority of deciding the meaning of words".

1. Is this the "standard interpretation"?
2. Is there something more subtle in this line that I'm not catching?

Thanks, --NorwegianBlue ^talk 13:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I always assumed (and this seems to be backed up by The Annotated Alice, which is the standard interpretation if anything is) that for Humpty Dumpty, the question is whether the speaker is master, or whether the words themselves are. That is, whether words have inherent meaning which the speaker must take into account, or whether the speaker can assign meanings as he pleases. Algebraist 13:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I have understood it in the manner of being who has the authority (which speaker) of assigning meaning, and heard it repeated (in academic contexts) in that fashion. But I'm no specialist. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Both interpretations work excellently in the (academic) context where I intend to use it. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 14:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear to me as a reader that Algebraist's reading is correct. "Which" means which one of a set of alternatives, and the alternatives mentioned in the previous line of dialogue are "you" and "words". Also, note that the previous verb was "make". In an era when servants were common, it was masters who "made" people do things, so if John makes James do something, it settles the question of which of them is the master. And besides, it's very Lewis Carrollish to imagine the words being the master. --Anonymous, expanded 18:57 UTC, November 7, 2009.

Thanks! --NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

In this YouTube clip, the text is actually changed, to "The question is, which is to be the master, you or the word, that's all.", avoiding any ambiguity, and supporting the interpretation of Algebraist and Anoymous (and Martin Gardner, apparently) --NorwegianBlue ^talk 17:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Guardianship of Floris V (1258-1266)

Something is amiss. In the article Floris V, Count of Holland it says his father William II of Holland was killed in 1256 when he was two years old. William II was married to Elizabeth of Brunswick-Luneburg (Floris mother), who died 27 May 1266. In the Discussion section of Floris V article someone also noticed it was previously linked to the wrong battle. Now it looks like it was not really a battle, but just a "squable" over the guardianship of Floris while he was becoming of age. This link shows this for 1263. Could the "Regency War" really be just a "squable" of the Hollandic noblemen? It looks like there were 3 guardians until Floris became of age when twelve. Would it be a correct statement to say that his uncle Floris 'de Voogd' (Willian's brother) acted as his first regent; then Adelaide of Holland was his second guardian from 1258 to 1263; then Otto II of Gelre (his cousin) as his third guardian (1263-1266). Apparently there was much "squabling" between Adelaide and Otto for some eight years (1258 to 1266) and the Hollandic noblemen. Apparently there was no "squabling" between Floris 'de Voogd' and Otto II of Gelre or the Hollandic noblemen between 1254 and 1258; the first four years of Floris' life - or was there? So, why was Floris' mother not the regent since she lived until 1266? Did the Hollandic noblemen have more power than William's wife? Would it not be more correct to reword the Floris V article something like ....First his uncle, then his aunt, fought over custody of Holland. Then in 1263, Otto II of Guelders served as his guardian until he was twelve years old and considered capable of administering Holland himself...? --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, by all means; and why not bolster the statement with a reference to your dependable source. Notes concerning specific Wikipedia articles are generally posted at thje relevant talkpages, in this case Talk:Floris V, Count of Holland.--Wetman (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Did as you suggested. --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Richard Ramirez's execution date?

Is it possible to know when will he be executed? Why so many years in prison? Since 1988... and John Allen Muhammad will be put down this Tuesday for a 2002 crime. --FromSouthAmerica (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ramirez is on death row in California which is famously slow about the death penalty. They currently have almost 700 people on death row but have averaged less than 1 execution a year for the past twenty years. Rmhermen (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

How often do they overturn death sentences? They could have lots of people on death row without being slow to execute people if they just often sentence people to death and then change their minds. --Tango (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

California apparently averages 25 years on death row before execution, twice the national average wait.[26] 75.41.110.200 (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

November 8

Reasons for moonshine being illegal? (in the U.S.)

Prohibition ended a loooooooooooooooong time ago, and while there are still dry counties, these are few and far between. From what I understand, producing moonshine both for personal use and commercial use is illegal just about everywhere. I can understand how the latter would require taxation and FDA regulation, but if I can make my own beer & wine, why can't I distill my own grain alcohol? 216.93.191.242 (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not illegal to distill grain alcohol, it's just illegal to do it outside a licensed distillery. You can open a licensed distillery yourself if you have some money and are willing to jump through enough hoops. One hoops involves giving the key to the distillery, so they can pop in any time they like and make sure all your alcohol is accounted for and taxed. It's all about taxes, and has been since the Whiskey Rebellion. You're allowed to make beer and wine at home only in quantities toolow for you to sell profitably or them to think worth taxing. PhGustaf (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh. If you want to distill legally, move to New Zealand. Hobby distillation is legal there. PhGustaf (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless done perfectly, distillation of alcohol can include fractions which could cause blindness and paralysis: [27],[28],[29], [30], [31]. Lead in the condensor can also be a problem. Is that a contraindication?Edison (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) In addition to the tax issues, it can be dangerous to distil your own alcohol. If you do it wrong you can end up concentrating the really serious poisons rather than the ethanol. It is also easy to contaminate it by using dirty equipment (car radiators that still have traces of antifreeze, for example). See Moonshine#Safety. --Tango (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are 3 reasons I know of, the first two of which have already been listed:

1) Taxes: Even if for your own personal consumption, the government still thinks this means they lose tax revenue because you won't be buying as much taxable liquor.

2) Safety - poison: Drinking moonshine can be dangerous to your health, as noted previously.

3) Safety - explosion hazard: Mixing alcohol and an open flame has the potential to cause a fire and/or explosion. StuRat (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A man making poteen was let off with a caution in Ireland I believe because it was well made without any contaminants. So it obviously takes some work to do it properly. Dmcq (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Taxes are the motivation, remember: personal health and safety of citizens are justifications after the fact.--Wetman (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd never heard "poteen" and thought you meant "poutine", and thought, "it's not that bad"!  :) --Sean 14:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Baron and Count of Thurn and Taxi

When were was the first member of the Thurn and Taxi family created Baron and later count? Was Leonhard I von Taxis (1544–1612) the first baron of Thurn and Taxi or Lamoral von Taxis (1612–1624). Also was Lamoral von Taxis (1612–1624) or Leonhard II von Taxis (1624–1628) the first count of Thurn and Taxi? Is there any dates of these creations?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobility of the Holy Empire with ratification of arms 31 May 1512 for two sets of four brothers who were cousins

confirmation of Nobility of the Holy Empire and ratification of arms (Jean-Baptiste) 5 Jan 1534

Grand Postmaster General to the German Empire 16 June 1595

Lord and Baron of the Holy Empire (Leonard I de Taxis) 16 Jan 1608

Hereditary Grand Postmaster General of the Empire in the Netherlands, Lorraine and Burgundy 27 July 1615

Count of the Holy Empire 8 June 1624

Permission to bear the name and arms of the Counts von Thurn und Valsassina 24 Sept 1650

Prince de la Tour et Tassis 19 Feb 1681

Prince of the Holy Empire extended to all descendants 4 Oct 1695

Hereditary Grand Postmaster General of the Holy Empire 2 July 1744

Vote in the Council of Princes of the Holy Empire 30 May 1754 by virtue of the dignity of Hereditary Grand Postmaster General 30 May 1754.

The place to look for confirmation of who was specified would be the Almanach de Gotha (pretty much available online in pdfs served by the Biblioteche Nationale de France via Gallica, but it's a bit tedious. - Nunh-huh 09:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Einstein's last theorem

One of the most famous citations of Einstein is something like "There are only two infinite things: Universe and stupidity, and I'm not sure about the first". Yesterday, when I was lying on my bed this statement strike me-my God, how come that no one saw this before-Einstein last theorem was that stupidity is a space with infinite number of dimensions or an infinite dimension by itself. I was thrilled; it's not every day that you have such important scientific discovery at hand. But then I start wonder, like Ferma, Einstein didn't leave behind the mathematical prove for us-or that he did? I burrowed Einstein writings, I found that many things could be infinite in theory, for example, mass could be infinite when traveling at the speed of light, but for that infinite energy is needed, and we know that there is finite amount of energy in our universe-so both can't be really infinite. And then it cross my mind again, stupidity is not energy, nor it has a mass, and it's infinite-so it isn't a practical, but what could it be? Maybe the contradiction between the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics could be solved when applying stupidity as another dimension? It make no sense at all, and this only strength my mind that I'm on the right way, because Einstein arguments make no sense at all at the beginning-and then it turned to be that he was right. I spent the all night in a search for a solution, but in vein. My head became full of ideas, as like the spirit of Einstein himself reflected itself through me. Then I become tired and fall to sleep, while sleeping I had a vision: Einstein himself was speaking to me, as like he was trying to pass a massage to the entire universe through me, but I couldn't understand it as he was speaking German. So, could anyone prove that stupidity is infinite?( you may use mathmatical induction for that)--Gilisa (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-stupid: 1+1=2.

Stupid: 1+1=π or 1+1=a giraffe.

Even just sticking to real numbers that aren't 2 (or 10 if you want to go binary), you can come up with an infinite number of stupid examples. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's classic.--Gilisa (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Even though there are an infinite number of stupid examples, we can start with the definition of stupidity as a property of a person, action or belief that indicates low intelligence. Let's say (you may disagree with this) that actions are done by people and beliefs are held by people so niether can exist without people. So modify the definition to: property of a person that indicates low intelligence. There are a finite amount of people who each have a finite time to hold beliefs and perform actions and a finite observable universe that those actions could affect. So the limitations on people imposes limitations on the extent of stupidity. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I know this doesn't directly contribute, but Einstein was not correct in everything he did, scientifically or otherwise. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, everything he said was not always to be taken to be a statement of scientific truth. See sarcasm and platitude, and depending on your opinion, wit. --Jayron32 20:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. He had a lively sense of humour (such as his explanation of relativity in terms of how more quickly the time goes when sitting next to a pretty girl than next to a less attractive woman). His humour was never intended to be subjected to rigorous scientific analysis. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Klimt

Please, do you know the name of this Klimt's painting? http://www.ikea.com/at/de/catalog/products/50149720 Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atacamadesert12 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Water Snakes II ([32]) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What was my salary in the year 19XX worth now, in the UK?

I used to do a moderately well-paid but very boring job. I'd like to find out what the equivalent salary would be now for the money I earnt then. One way to do this would be to adjust the money from 19XX for inflation to get the 2009 equivalent. Another way would be to get some idea of what percentile my salary was at in 19XX, and then find out what the salary at the same percentile would be now. As people's incomes have been slowly rising by more than inflation, as the population's standard of living has slowly risen over the years, then the answer from this method will probably be different. Can anyone tell me where I could get the information for either methods please? 78.147.8.170 (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This [33] site has a calculator to convert your income from year X (minimum 1930) to a theoretical current level. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Different jobs have had pay rise at different rates so if you want to know what you could earn doing that job now you would be better off looking for vacancies and seeing what salaries are on offer. --Tango (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Tango is correct. Certain jobs have seen salaries rise beyond average (and vice versa) because of (dropping of) government encouragement, scarcity, changes in technology, changes in relative pricing etc.

Risking looking stupid, I'll give an example with two ill-educated guesses:

I can't imagine that a plumber with, say, five years experience in 1960 could enjoy anything like the quality of life he could expect today.

Conversely, and perhaps equally stupidly, I also suspect that in 1960, a primary school teacher with 5 years experience would have had a relatively better income compared with society at large, than today. --Dweller (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Which Saint Rose?

St. Rose Catholic Church in western Ohio (specifically, Marion Township, Mercer County) was established in 1839 among primarily German settlers. Any idea which of the three Saints Rose is most likely (or least unlikely) to be the patron? I can't find anything on the already-linked parish website, and this document — the only other one that I can find that deals with the history of the parish — doesn't discuss the question either. Nyttend (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Rose of Lima is your most likely Rose for an American church. Of the 3 listed, Saint Rose Philippine Duchesne is impossible: she was canonized after the church was named. The site you point to seems to indicate that the name arose from the flowers found on the site: they presumably picked a St. Rose afterwards. (I'm guessing they chose St. Rose of Lima because they're American, which would be even more likely if they're of the Dominican Order. But there are other Stse. Rose. The only way to be sure would be to write them. - Nunh-huh 15:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I emailed a related church yesterday — St. Augustine Catholic Church, a short distance to the east, to ask if their patron is the Doctor or the first Archbishop of Canterbury — so I was planning to email them, but thought it best to wait until Monday. FYI, the church has always been related to the Society of the Precious Blood. One other thing that I should have mentioned: it seems also to have been called "St Rosa" at one time, as I've seen that name used to refer to the crossroads community in which it is located, and "St Rosa" is the name over the entrance to the cemetery. Would this shed any light on the subject? I observe that we have no article on St. Rosa, and I'm assuming "Rosa" is a variant of "Rose". Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Since St. Rose of Lima was Peruvian, her Spanish name would have been Santa Rosa de Lima, so I think that supports her as the likely namesake. - Nunh-huh 07:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Before posting this thread, I'd not observed that St Rose Philippine Duchesne hadn't yet been canonised. I assumed that "Rosa" would be sensible for the Peruvian saint, but the Italian name for the Italian saint is "Rosa", so I wasn't sure. Your reminder that St Rose of Lima is the patron saint of the Americas is enough for me: I'm only trying to put the church in the right subcategory of Commons:Category:Churches by patron saint, so original research isn't a problem. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Iambic pentameter

In Shakespearean England, did everyone speak in iambic pentameter? --75.39.192.162 (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you think? --Tango (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

All of Shakespeare's plays were written in iambic pentameter, which would seem to indicate that it was the main style of speech at the time. --75.39.192.162 (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You might find it helpful to compare with an old sitcom: watch how everyone talks in a strange 'stagey' way, pausing after every line to allow the audience to react. People no more talked like this in normal life than they talked in iambic pentameter: it's merely a convention of that specific type of drama, used to give a specific effect and match expectations.

This reminds me of something I read about American stage-acting of the 19th - early 20th century, something about the 'stagey' style of acting and talking which was utterly different from naturalistic acting or British stage-acting, or later film-acting. Anyone have links? 86.142.224.71 (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Our article on the iambic pentameter states in the first sentence: "Iambic pentameter is one of many meters used in poetry and drama." It remains to be researched if life in Elizabethan England was sufficiently poetic and dramatic for everyone to satisfy such conditions. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In Molière's 17th-century comedy, Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme Monsieur Jourdain is astonished and delighted to find that he's been speaking prose all along. Natural English speech often falls into iambic patterns.--Wetman (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit of WP:OR, but if you read and most importantly watch a lot of Shakespeare, you may eventually notice something: While the main characters tend to stick to the pentameter, characters of lower stature (porters, guards, etc.) regularly deviate and speak in a normal parlance. I would be akin to the perceived differences in British accents today, such as Cockney or the Queen's. The majority of Shakespeare's patrons were the poor villagers, and they would have likely noticed the distinction between how they and the upper-class characters spoke. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If poetry were ere the spoken norm
The iambic pentameter the rule,
Then those of us who lacked a sense of form
Would find the strain of speaking far too cruel.
And scholars then would rule the world with dread:
You'd need one every time you bought some bread.

DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You can find a number of speeches by Queen Elizabeth I online. In contrast to the speeches of Shakespearean leaders, none of the real-world speeches by Elizabeth are in iambic pentameter; all are in prose[34][35][36].--Lesleyhood (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

death sentence and president approval

Does the American president have to approve any death sentence in USA or that he must approve only soldiers death penalties?--Gilisa (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There are three different cases:

1) State death penalties (this is the common type): The President has no authority over the use of these. In this case the governor of the state in question has the right to grant pardons, but is not involved in the original sentencing.

2) Federal death penalties (outside the military, extremely rare): The President does have the authority to grant pardons, commute sentences, etc., but only after the original sentencing.

3) US military death penalties (extremely rare): In this case the President is in the chain of command above the military courts, and could theoretically influence the original sentencing. However, they are typically very "hands off" at this point, in order to not be accused of inappropriate influence over the court. After sentencing, the President again has the right to pardon sentences, commute them, etc. StuRat (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln, from 1861-1865 issued numerous pardons, including for civil convictions for treasonand military convictions for desertion. Edison (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean civilian convictions for treason? "Civil" in this contest means the opposite of "criminal" rather than the opposite of "military". --Tango (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The reference says Lincoln issued "civil warrants" to pardon those convicted in "civil courts." Edison (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know about soldiers, but for ordinary citizens, the prison system may carry out a death sentence without seeking the President's involvement at all. The President has the power to grant clemency, which converts the death sentence into a lesser sentence. In theory, a President could issue a Blanket clemency order converting all death sentences to life-imprisonment sentences, but as far as I know, no President has ever come close to doing anything like that. As our Blanket clemency article says, though, Governor George Ryan of Illinois issued a blanket clemency to all death row inmates in 2003, and I recall at the time that other governors considered following suit. --M@rēino 20:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • See also Capital punishment by the United States federal government - the last execution of a U.S. soldier occurred in 1961, so it isn't much of an issue. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It might be an issue in a couple of years when that guy from Fort Hood gets the needle or the chair or whatever is used these days. Googlemeister (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Christian Democratic Parties

I have two questions to ask you:

1. Are Christian democratic parties left-wing or right-wing?

2. Is the Christian Democratic Party in Australia left-wing or right-wing?

3. Is Christian democracy left-wing or right-wing?

Bowei Huang (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Usually Christian Democratic parties are conservative, i.e. right, although exceptions might exist. The party in Australia is right-wing (see Christian Democratic Party (Australia)). For more information, you can consult Christian democracy. Regards SoWhy 22:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that "left wing" and "right wing" are stereotypic labels that may or may not be useful under in this context. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please explain in what ways they may not be useful in this context. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The opening paragraphs of our article on Left-right politics may shed some light. Also the last paregraph of the section Contemporary usage in the United States specifically mentions Christian conservatives in general identifying with the right-wing. Vespine (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Many Christian Democrats would claim, at least in some circumstances, to be centrist, progressive or non-secular liberal rather than conservative: you really have to look at the specific political universe in which they operate. The predecessor to the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union in Germany was in fact called the Zentrumspartei or Centre Party aligned between the Nationalists on their Right and the Social Democrats and Communists on their left. In the Low Countries (Benelux), where party alignments have changed in the last decade or two, the historical position of Christian Democratic parties was to the left of the Liberal parties on economics, taxes and social welfare, but to their right on issues such as secularism/clericalism and moral regulation. In the post-war Fourth French Republic, a similar position was taken by the Mouvement Républicain Populaire (MRP), a Catholic party which grew out of the Resistance and collaborated with the Socialists and the Radicals. There's no space here to expound at length on Social Catholicism, Rerum Novarum or Quadragesimo Anno, but (like Monsignor John A. Ryan in the United States) many Catholics sought a non-Marxist response to the atomising effects of capitalism, industrialism, urbanism and modernisation that would restore the solidarity and mutual support of rural societies. However, what had been the historical positions of the parties over much of the 20th century has changed in recent decades. Often the Christian Democrats grew at the expense of more-right-wing parties (as in Germany and Italy) and by default occupied the right-hand slot in their nations' politics. In a basically secular country like Australia without an established Church, the Christian Democrats are usually right-wing groups focused on moral/religious issues such as abortion, homosexuality and pornography. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There are a few examples of Christian Democratic parties siding with the left in Latin America (such as in Uruguay). However, contemporary Christian Democracy is generally identified as right, centre-right or centrist. --Soman (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Antigone

In the original Greek, did Antigone rhyme or have a standard meter? --75.15.163.184 (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Greek tragedies were written in various meters for different scenes and characters (the chorus had a different meter than the main character, for example). I don't think they rhymed, just because rhyme is not usually a feature of ancient meters, which depend more on the aesthetics of syllable lengths. Antigone was the same, it didn't have one standard meter. It's like Shakespeare that way, minus the rhyming. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This page in an introduction to the play discusses matters metrical. --Sean 14:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

November 9

Begrüßungsgeld

In 1988 West Germany, what can you buy with your 100 DM "welcome money"? F (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Taking the data from this source and this source and doing the math, I find that DM 100 in 1988 would be worth about €71 in 2008. There has been very little inflation since 2008, so that number is about right for today. That would be enough money to stay in the cheapest accommodation, such as a youth hostel, for 2 nights and maybe to buy about 2 days worth of cheap food. That might be enough to get by before one could expect to qualify for assistance from the West German state, although they may well have had facilities free of charge for refugees. Alternatively, that amount could buy a train ticket (maybe not on an express train) to most parts of Germany. When the Berlin wall was opened, I think that many of the East Berliners who flooded across used their welcome money to buy small luxuries or consumer goods that they couldn't get in the east. Marco polo (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It would, for example, have bought you 20 pounds of coffee, 4-5 meals in non-fancy restaurants, one meal in a fancy restaurant, 100 l of milk or 10 kg of chocolate, 12 cinema tickets, or 15 paperback books. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

what is the relationship between truth and reality?

what is the relationship between truth and reality, if any. 92.230.65.3 (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

To quote Aristotle (from memory): "To say of that which is that it is not, or of that which is not that it is, is untrue, whereas to say of that which is that it is, or of that which is not that it is not, is true." Reality would be "that which is", and truth would be the property of being an accurate statement about reality. Aristotle is not being flip, rather he is drawing a picture of the blindingly obvious to draw our attention to the fact that it really is blindingly obvious. That is, he's trying to say that "truth" and "untruth" and their relationship to reality are irreducible and you can't really explain them to someone who does not understand, or pretends not to (Socratic irony has its limits). But that's just one view. If you don't like it, other philosophers have others.--Rallette (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

To most people, "truth" is an absolute. That is, "truth" = "reality". There are a minority, however, that think of "truth" as relative, or, in other words, it's whatever you think it is, regardless of reality. A prime example of that type of thinking is in the book Nineteen Eighty Four, where it is argued that if everyone thinks that 2+2=5, then it does. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Truth is how reality is perceived. For example, think of the story of the blind men and the elephant. They were asked to describe the elephant based on what they perceived by touching it. Four of them said an elephant is like a tree trunk: one said it was like a snake: one said it was like a whip with hair at the end. Of course, it isn't like that - but that was their perception, and to them that was the truth. It's the basis behind qualitative analysis in social sciences: asking people how they perceive a service, rather than relying on quantitative analysis which only tells you numbers. For example, consider a charity which provides a service funded by an external agency such as the NHS. It can provide a really good service which meets all the targets regarding bums on seats/footfall, but if service users give negative feedback, then funders are likely to withdraw the funding. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Romantic friendship

Could I get some info that has to do with the same topic as romantic friendship, but heterosexual focused? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 07:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Platonic love useful to you? --Tango (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Closer, but I guess I'm looking for more information on the modern definition stated in the first sentence as applied to heterosexual romantic friendships, and on the heterosexual romantic friendships themselves. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 08:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's discussed at length in Theodore Zeldin's An Intimate History of Humanity. Book has references you could look up, too. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant, inappropriate comments

No, girls who aren't into you sexually are not going to cuddle with you, you might as well forget it. 92.230.65.3 (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Not true. I had a friend who wasn't lesbian but she cuddled and even kissed me sometimes because she knew I liked her, but it was always clear that this was just for me and wasn't going to go any further —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.85 (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC) This is one of the funnier, and somewhat insulting, responses I have ever seen at the reference desk. If you must know, I am doing research for AP Psychology. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 08:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific please, what section of that article is closest to what you want? By the way many people fool themselves a friendship is just that but they turn into affairs. Dmcq (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's somewhat difficult to phrase...basically, like said above, "Platonic love, in its modern popular sense...non-sexual affectionate relationship" or "romantic friendship...very close but non-sexual relationship between friends". I can find a plethora of information on purely romantic relationships or non-romantic friendships, but I can never seem to find any information on what falls in between, which is what I am looking for. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Friends with benefits? Casual relationship? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Those two are usually explicitly not romantic. They are just sexual. --Tango (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, they rarely last long without any romantic feelings whatsoever, and often something in between develops. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Am I perhaps looking for a relationship style that doesn't exsist (or at least hasn't been widely studied) when I think "A) Romantic feelings, B) No sexual desire, and C) very close friendship" all rolled into one? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, when you put it that way, that just sounds like marriage ten years in! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

World War II British submarine sonar operators

I'm researching British WWII submarine sonar operators. I've found a lot of useful information on the web, but I've been unable to find answers to the following two questions:

What wages would a sonar operator have earned? Where would he fit into the command hierarchy?

Please could somebody point me in the right direction? Yes, I admit this is homework, but I've spend a lot of time looking for answers to these two questions, and have drawn a blank.

Thanks in advance.--168.168.43.250 (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The best links I can find are this from a British operator, and this from a US one. In both cases the operators are enlisted men, not officers, and seem to be only a couple of ranks up the ladder from the bottom. Knowing that should let you find out what the wages were - I doubt they were paid more than others of their rank. Even in WWII everyone on a ship had a specific job, usually a pretty technical one. It may help with your search to know that during WWII the British usually referred to Sonar as ASDIC.

Have a look at this [37]; the relevant RN rank (near the bottom of the page) might be Submarine Detector Instructor, Higher Submarine Detector and Submarine Detector. Then look here [38]: (click bottom right of the image to enlarge). "Rate per diem"...

"Submarine Detector Instructor: 1s 9d

Higher Submarine Detector: 0s 9d or 1s 0d

Submarine Detector: 0s 6d

Anti-Submarine Officer's Writer (ie clerk): 0s 3d"

I'm fairly sure that this is in addition to their usual daily rates of pay, which you can find here [39] - Ordinary Seaman, Leading Seaman etc etc. Hope this helps. Alansplodge (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's me again - it looks from your question as though you mean an ASDIC operator in a submarine rather than on a surface warship. Therefore Page 33 (my second link above) says...

"Submarine pay: 0s 9d to 3s 9d

Rangefinding allowance 0s 2d

Hydrophone allowance 0s 3d"

I don't know if ASDIC would be "rangefinding" but I don't see what else you could use underwater. I don't think they would mention ASDIC by name because it was secret. A hydrophone is a listening device - does it need more skill than ASDIC? I'm raising more questions than I'm answering I'm afraid! Alansplodge (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sstock markets

Differences and similarities between Primary markets and Secondary markets 12:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.34.165 (talk)

Apples and pears - participants, structure, pricing, settlement and regulation are all different. Only similarity is instruments - a security issued in the primary market may subsequently be traded in the secondary markets. See primary market and secondary market. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Humans arguing with God

The Old Testament contains occasional examples of human prophets arguing with or at least strongly debating with God (2 examples: Abraham lobbying for the saving of Sodom; Moses arguing with God not to destroy the Israelites after the Golden Calf episode). Are there similar examples in the New Testament and / or the Qur'an, other than, perhaps, repeats of the OT stories? --Dweller (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, all the time. By turning into a human, God was able to talk and directly interact with people on a daily basis MBelgrano (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

MBelgrano, I don't think that he meant to that (and is there any example when people argue against Jesus and then after he change his mind?). In Judaism there is a discipline that explain the meaning of these "debates" (which seen ,in a nutshell, as advocacy by Jewish scholars).--Gilisa (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's doen all the time, lots of prayers are like that. Dmcq (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I mean where the text makes it clear there's a dialogue, and man and God are arguing back and forth. Probably without the need for colon indents and wikimarkup. --Dweller (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There isn't anything like that in the NT. —Akrabbim^talk 14:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Dweller I know no such stories in the Qur'an and certainly not in the NT. One reason for that there are no such stories in the NT, is that according to the NT Jesus served as one person sacrifice to pardon all humanity so he ccouldn't go against his mission and debate with God about it. Also, NT concept of God is very different than this Judaism have (no trinity in Judaism). More, the attitude of NT about crime and punishment is pretty much different from this of the Hebrew Bible.--Gilisa (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Since I posted, I wondered if Jesus's words on the cross counted, but my hazy memory of the text is that there's no recorded reply from the Father. --Dweller (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

In Islam there's the story of how Allah wanted everyone to pray to him 50 times a day, and Mohammed argued with him and bargained him down to "just" 5 times a day. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly the kind of thing I'm after. Sounds like Allah is arguing back, too. Source please... online version would be great if possible. --Dweller (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's an online source: [40]. StuRat (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's from a work of fiction, not a holy book, but Fiddler on the Roof has some hilarious examples of Tevye bargaining with God, such as "I understand that we are the chosen people, but, just this once, couldn't you maybe choose somebody else ?" (spoken right before an impending pogrom). StuRat (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but God doesn't argue back. --Dweller (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

StuRat, I forgot this one. It somehow have resemblance to the course of the discussion Abraham had with God about the sentence of Sodom people. There, God asked somewhat relatively high number of righteous ones among Sodom people but Abraham pleading decrease it to Ten. There are other fundamental differences between what is written in the bible and the story in the Quran (e.g., in the Hebrew bible all "arguments" had the purpose to call off a disaster, but never a commandment), but it's too long for here.--Gilisa (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesus also talked with God, begging to be spared of the crucifixion. God doesn't seem to have answered directly though, and didn't change his mind at all (read Arrest of Jesus). Flamarande (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

He begged not to be crucified? Hmm..pretty much contrary to what I know: According to the NT, didn't he prayed to be able to stand it and was told by the devil that one man can't carry the burden of humanity sins (refering to Jesus intent to be crucified)?--Gilisa (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

In the Garden of Gethsemane: Matthew 26, Verse 42: "He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. ". 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

How this say that he begged for the crucifiction to be cancelled?--Gilisa (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa, I'm aware that English is not your first language. Maybe you should look the verse up in your mother tongue? It's clearer in verse 39 "(...)My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." It's not the most ferocious arguing, since he's saying "Please, if there's any way around this, don't make me do this. But I'll still do your will if you don't change your mind."

Edit to add: I realise I'm assuming familiarity with the context. You might be better off reading the whole chapter in your first language. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

86.142.224.71, give me a break. English is not my first language but I understand very well what is written in the NT. Thank you for the interpretation you gave, but it was realy unneeded. All he said is that if there is another way -then he would prefer it. But if not, then he's willing to take it. This is very different from the case of Sodom, where Abraham asked God to judge Sodom indulgently -as it may be that Sodom people are not all the same and he asked God to give more weight to the righteous ones and to spare the all city for them (he actually bargained), until he understand that Sodom is totaly corrupted and evil.--Gilisa (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the indivisibility of the Trinity alluded to in a later section on this page, "not as I will but as you will" is fairly odd in this context. I guess God was in two minds about the whole business :) As for the original question, Jesus rarely argued purely and simply but many of his parables were in response to questions which could be considered debate arguments. A lot of this was in attempts to trick Jesus into contradicting scripture. Render unto Caesar details one well-known example. In John 12, Judas argues with Jesus about Mary's use of expensive anointing oils. Grutness...wha? 23:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And that's where you get into the whole humanity of Jesus thing, whereby a lot of mainstream branches of Christianity hold that he was both wholly man and wholly God. It would therefore be the wholly human Jesus who was doing all the doubting and worrying and suffering. I guess for the purposes of this question, that probably means we can't use examples with Jesus. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It is much simpler if you see the term "son of God" as mutually exclusive with the term "God the son" (which never occurs in the original text). But there is too many centuries of theology mixed in for that to be accepted. —Akrabbim^talk 01:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The end of The Book of Job has similar features, but is more of a monologue style. Steewi (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The book of Job is part of the Hebrew bible and not of the NT. And anyway, Job is not arguing with God -as you wrote, it's much more a monologue.--Gilisa (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

State Visit

Do world leaders ever share a "brainstorming session" or do they always go into a meeting with a set position. Can you provide some examples where a world leader left a meeting with a different position after talking with another? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully a little of both, but in truth there's probably a lot more of the former. I also bet that there's actually a lot of so-called brainstorming behind the scenes before the leaders actually meet; those meetings are usually more about getting a feel for a process. As an example, though, take the relatively recent situation of and Afghani runoff election. John Kerry traveled there and "unexpectedly" convinced Hamid Karzai to agree to a runoff.[41][42] ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The 2009 imprisonment of American journalists by North Korea is also potentially relevant. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not a world leader, but I would assume that it's 0% brainstorming, because these guys only get a couple of hours to meet and they probably have a large backlog of issues to negotiate. They have underlings that spend a lot of time brainstorming (hopefully in meetings with the other side as well). Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The stereotypical situation, as beautifully exemplified in Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister, is that the officials write the final communiqué on the plane while going to the conference/summit, before it's even started. How far that differs from real life, I couldn't say, but hopefully quite a lot. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that is about right - someone (perhaps the host) writes the communique based on behind-the-scenes discussions that preceded the meeting and then the meeting takes the form of negotiating over the final wording of that communique. That's for things like the G20 meetings - one-one-one meetings between world leaders are probably more variable depending on the relationship between the countries and leaders. --Tango (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You should not be overly cynical about such meetings. They are in fact occasions where important matters are discussed and decisions are taken. Communiqués are written by bureaucrats with limited decision-making powers. They are prepared and quibbled over in advance because they usually cover very different ground than the actual contents of the meeting. It is very rare for leaders to actually spend time in a summit arguing over the communiqué language, unless it is a legally-binding text.

Leaders will be thoroughly briefed and scripted by their officials before a summit meeting, but in the end they are the decision makers and can ignore the script. In fact, it happens quite often, and officials must scramble to pretend they know that these decisions were coming their way and are perfectly consistent with whatever spin they were giving before the meeting. An interesting case of a meeting that went off script is the 1986 Reykjavik Summit between Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan; it was supposed to be a fairly benign, "get to know each other and repeat well-known positions" type of meeting, but the two leaders got into serious discussions about significant reductions in nuclear arms. While no agreement resulted, the mutual confidence the meeting and the wide-ranging discussion helped build between the two superpowers served to increase mutual confidence and hasten the end of the Cold War. Of course, at the time, many observers were greatly surprised and thought the two leaders were bonkers. --Xuxl (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Evolution

It apparently violates the establishment clause to either ban the teaching of evolution or require the teaching of flaws in evolution. However, would it be legal for a state to, rather than specifically banning evolution, simply remove evolution from the required state curriculum and not include any questions about evolution on their standardized assessments? ----J4\/4 <talk> 18:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

We´re not US lawyers, and therefore we're not qualified to answer this question. I humbly suggest you ask this question to a lawyer and to the Supreme Court of the United States as your question concerns the rights of the states (making this a constitutional matter). That court seems to be qualified enough to answer this particular question.Flamarande (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, just because YOU are not a US lawyer, doesn't mean other participants on this reference desk are not. Also, being "qualified" to answer a question is not a prerequisite to answering questions here. My point is the question can be discussed and answered without being "official". Tan | 39 18:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that this would be held to be unconstitutional in the United States, under Edwards v. Aguillard. Your proposal lacks "a clear secular purpose", and I would argue it "undermines the provision of a comprehensive scientific education," which were fundamental requirements in the ruling for such an act to be nonviolative of the Establishment Clause. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Many of what creationists call "Flaws in evolution" are presented to students. They're just not presented in the distorted, blown out of proportion way that you'd get from a anti-evolution tract. They're presented, correctly, as minor details that are still being worked out, points still undergoing debate or research, or as questions that are yet to be answered. It's an important part of good science education to teach that the process is ongoing and that our knowledge is constantly being refined. APL (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(Duplicate question is at Science ref desk). We had this same question not too long ago, I think. It would almost surely fail the Lemon test, as banning evolution would serve no secular purpose. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

They wouldn't be banning evolution, per se. Each state has the right to create its own standard curricula. If they can choose to omit other topics because they simply believe they aren't important enough to merit time, they should be allowed to do the same with evolution for the same reason. The "secular purpose" would be that the legislators creating the state standards don't feel that evolution is important enough to merit any class time. The Supreme Court has held that banning evolution is unconstitutional; this would merely make it so that evolution isn't required. Teachers would still be allowed to teach evolution, provided they covered everything in the state curriculum first. --75.40.206.243 (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant, 'evolution' which is largely considered to be a relevant issue of education of the modern world could be de facto banned through sneaky arguments, sneaky methods, and sneaky rules-lawyering. I'm truly glad that I'm not a lawyer. Flamarande (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It really wouldn't be banned, though. I think that in districts with large numbers of educated parents, parents would force the local board of education to mandate evolution in addition to the state standards. The main effect of such a move would probably be to further disadvantage students who live in districts with lower levels of education, who would then have trouble gaining admission to good universities. Such a move could well have this effect even on students from that state whose districts did teach evolution through guilt by association. This would rouse the state's elite to demand reinstatement of evolution into the state curriculum. As the case of Kansas demonstrates, attempts to discourage the teaching of evolution tend to lose out to educated parents' desire to safeguard their children's future. Even where it is outnumbered, the economic (and educational) elite tends to win out in our system of pay-to-play, for better or worse. Marco polo (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Only if you agree with 75's argument, which I don't buy. The ostensible purpose he listed would be laughed out of court by any judge, IMO. To some extent the OP is asking us to be a WP:CRYSTALBALL but I think it's reasonable to believe that the OP's strategy (and 75's) would fail when appealed to the federal court level. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What the questioner asks is exactly what the Kansas State Board of Education did when creationists got control over it in 1999. They de-emphasized evolution in the state science curriculum and removed it from standardized tests. The changes were reversed in 2001 after an election. See Creation and evolution in public education. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That change was never declared unconstitutional. It was merely reversed when the atheists took control of Kansas's educational system. --76.194.203.5 (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The "atheists took control of the Kansas's educational system"? How did they manage to do that? Flamarande (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems very unlikely. More likely it was taken over by Christians who aren't such fundamentalist extremists that they would be willing to sacrifice their children's education to make a political point. APL (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, last offer: no banning, no purging, no book burning. What about just "conveniently forgetting" the science-based answer to who we are, and why, and at the same time constantly chanting one randomly chosen religion-based answer? Would that work? DOR (HK) (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless it was the teachers doing that, it wouldn't make any difference at all, would it? Science teachers aren't likely to voluntary go against mainstream scientific opinion in large numbers. --Tango (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

god

is god made of cells? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.161.249 (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

?DIVISION BY ZERO ERROR

READY. Tan | 39 18:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The trinity is indivisible. Or so it is asserted. Which implies to me that there aren't loads of separate cells. Or maybe the adhesion between the cells is very strong. How do you expect anyone to determine an answer? I only know you are composed of cells by assuming you are human and knowing all humans checked so far are composed of cells. Dmcq (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

For those who believe, God is not made of matter, but of ineffable spirit (not the stuff you drink). For those who don't believe, he doesn't exist at all. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, ineffability. I'd been reading about inaccessible and ineffable cardinals but they seem distinctly non-religious :) (sorry an in-joke) Dmcq (talk)

The up-side of arguing he is made of cells is that he did, according to Genesis, make man in his image, so presumably there is some resemblance. But it does seem rather backwards to think of God having mitochondria, rather than being the maker of mitochondria. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but in his spiritual image. That's why it's often truly been said that we are not so much humans who sometimes have spiritual experiences, but spiritual beings who are currently having a human experience. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. God is most definitely made of cells. "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." (Of course, if you're not Mormon, results may vary.) --M@rēino 01:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the first point of clarification should be, "Which god?" DOR (HK) (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As M wrote, you will have different answers from different religions. According to Judaism, and I guess that Islam accept it to at the least certain extent, God have no body image, it's not material and we can't imagine it. According to Christianity the answers are different, mostly.--Gilisa (talk) 07:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

DC Sniper's Execution

Minutes ago, the US Supreme Court denied request to stay his execution (tomorrow 9pm EST). He has no salvation right? --190.50.123.131 (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The governor can always pardon him or commute his death sentence to life imprisonment. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The article Salvation says under " What must we do to be saved?": "Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"[Acts 2:38] So salvation is still within his grasp. Edison (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

But since he is a Muslim he is probably more interested in what Allah has to say about it. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The original poster probably wasn't speaking about "salvation" from a spiritual perspective--just my reading, at least. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Salvation lies within" - Inscribed by the warden on a Bible which contained the rock hammer used to escape, in The Shawshank Redemption. StuRat (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this particular prisoner has had the time for that route. Googlemeister (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

TICAD

Since TICAD is a forum like FOCAC the title is the 4th time when is the last TICAD? Did all the leaders go or most of them i didn't see Robert Mugabe and Paul Biya. how long was the program? I wonder if Yasuo Fukuda have meet with any African first ladies?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

crackdown on fakes

I read in a fashion magazine about this campaign called Fakes Are Never In Fashion. It must've inspired federal officials in New York City to conduct raids. I hope similar things are conducted in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles County, Chicago, Miami, and many other big cities across the United States of America. What are officials all over the world doing about fakes?24.90.204.234 (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say "must've?" Depending on how they make 'em, fake products (bags, usually) aren't necessarily illegal, but the way they are sold is. There has actually been a fair amount of press about all the good fake purses do. A $300-$800 bag is only available to a limited market, and thus fakes aren't necessarily taking away business from the big companies. Fakes for 20 or 30 bucks a pop allow people to have the appearance of such a bag - think professionals or teenagers - without having to throw down all the cash. Moreover, the fakes increase the visibility of the product, and are essentially free advertising. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Intellectual property in the People's Republic of China might be of some interest here. China is one of the biggest producers of pirate material, both electronic and material, and it is of import to international politics how the issue is dealt with, because of the influence industry has on the politics of the most developed nations. Steewi (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

edited to fix wikilink Steewi (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, fakes do take away some of the exclusivity of the brands they are copying, and the idea of having something that most people don't have is presumably at least a part of the motivation for spending (as it seems to me) ludicrous amounts of money on these items. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Officials in many countries have for years, periodically raided counterfeiters. Perhaps the Fakes Are Never In Fashion campaign has sorta inspired these people to do what they already do, or inspired their paymasters to publicise some raid or other. The campaign itself appears to be a creation of Harper's Bazaar, spearheaded by their senior vice president & publisher, Valerie Salembrier. Lord knows what the deeper politics of it all are. Harper's Bazaar is owned by Hearst Communications. Harpers and other of their titles, such as Cosmopolitan, receive huge amounts of advertising from vendors of luxury goods; so perhaps it's some form of enlightened self interest. Or perhaps she's just genuinely really concerned. As she says, "Counterfeit goods fund child labor, terrorism and drug cartels" ... much the same schtick as we've heard from the RIAA and MPAA. One would think that drugs fund drug cartels, but who am I to doubt these things? And presumably not-fake stuff never funds child labour, by some miracle of the market. And one can well picture Osama, down the King's Road, trying to flog fake Gucci sunglasses to fund his holy war. Whilst one can have some sympathy for the rights of intellectual property holders, the whole shebang is really much more about shoring up the profits of LVMH than it is any concern about the supposed down-sides. And this takes us back to the bands of public officials, paid for by your taxes, who police the market in the interests of the profit of multinationals. So, bottom line: it is not clear cut to me that it is such a great thing to encourage more use of public funds for this purpose, when civil routes to protection of IP are available. </rant> --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

How about counterfeit pharmaceuticals? Do they qualify as fakes?24.90.204.234 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

They do, if you like - Counterfeit medications. We also have counterfeit consumer goods, should you wish for any. Clearly some problems arising from some counterfeit drugs are of a different order than for a dodgy handbag. There's no limit to the ingenuity of fakers. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope the computer industry is helping out with the crackdown on counterfeit software and equipment.24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

While I can imagine what counterfeit computer equipment would look like, I'm having more trouble grasping the concept of counterfeit software... On the one hand, if it is a straight out copy, then it's not counterfeit but piracy, on the other hand, if you talk about software that looks very much like other software, there's always the copyright law notion of "ideas can not be copyrighted" - i.e. Microsoft cannot sue OpenOffice, for instance, since they use the same idea for word processors and such. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What's counterfeit is the packaging—the CDs are printed to look like official Microsoft CDs, there's a fake certificate of authenticity, etc. -- BenRG (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

November 10

Citizenship of the Queen

What is Queen Elizabeth II's citizenship? Obviously British, but she is the Queen of 14 other realms, officially head of state. So, for example, she is the Queen of Canada, a separate crown from that of Great Britain. Does she also hold that citizenship? 70.79.246.134 (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Citizenship in the U.K. is related to the idea of being a British subject, quite literally it means "A subject of (subordinate of) the British Crown" and as such, the concept that the Queen would be a subject to herself is a patently silly idea. Furthermore, the concept of "official citizenship" is basically one of bureaucratic paper pushing; the sort of thing that commoners need to worry about, and not what the Monarch worries about. The queen is just the queen. She is both a sovereign (as a person) and sovereign (as a concept). In otherwords, at the theoretical level, the Queen is under the jurisdiction of no one except God; and as such needed worry about things like citizenship. In practical matters, Parliament rules the U.K. (and the various national assemblies likewise rule other Commonwealth realms). However, the "pomp and circumstance" surrounding the Government of the U.K. at least plays along with the idea that the Queen is the ultimate source of all sovereignty in the U.K. (with ideas like Her Majesty's Government, etc.) To sum up, she isn't the citizen of anywhere, because being a citizen would mean she denies her own sovereignty. --Jayron32 05:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast, there. As you'll see if you follow the link, the concept of "British subject" has been redefined several times and the term is now almost obsolete. Citizens of the UK are just citizens of the UK now, like the way it works in most countries. --Anonymous, 08:41 UTC, November 10, 2009.

I agree with Jayron - whatever the rules on UK Citizenship, they don't apply to the Queen. Alansplodge (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And it's 15 other realms, btw. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Though I too agree with Jayron, I'd have to say that if you define "The British Crown" as meaning the whole system of monarchy, rather than simply the monarch, then you could argue that there is probably no-one who is more "subject of the British Crown" than HMTQ. Just about her every move is specifically part of the monarchic system. Grutness...wha? 10:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

www.royal.gov.uk describes the Queen as "a national of the United Kingdom" and "a citizen of the European Union". However, her position as Sovereign is obviously somewhat unique - she does not hold a passport, for example, and UK civil or criminal law proceedings cannot be taken against her in person. Interestingly, she is entitled to vote in both UK and European elections, although by tradition the Queen and members of the Royal Family do not exercise this right. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Do any heads of state, or even heads of government, have (or at least use) passports? I would expect they all travel on diplomatic papers. --Tango (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean by "diplomatic papers". There is such a thing as a diplomatic passport, but it is still a passport. All other members of the Royal Family apart from the Queen need passports. The US President has a passport [43]. I imagine it is only monarchs who don't need passports. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Heads of states normally travel on diplomatic passports. I'm not sure what the Queen does when she travels outside the Commonwealth. --Xuxl (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"When travelling overseas, The Queen does not require a British passport ... As a British passport is issued in the name of Her Majesty, it is unnecessary for The Queen to possess one. All other members of the Royal Family, including The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales, have passports." www.royal.gov.uk Gandalf61 (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing here, but if her son and heir has a passport, it is probable that she also had a passport which has since expired. She wasn't always the queen. Flamarande (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Creeds

I've noticed that the Apostle's Creed describes Christ as "crucified, dead and buried", whereas the Nicene Creed merely says "he suffered and was buried". Is there any theogical significance in the Nicene Creed not specifically saying that he died? Has this ever been the matter of controversy or alternative views as to whether he did actually die on the cross? --rossb (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Our article Christology may be a good starting point for your research. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that article doesn't seem to address this issue. --rossb (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's really interesting. It seems clear in the Latin at least, although the ecumenical English translation widely used since the 70's has "he suffered death and was buried". Does anyone know if the word used in Greek means only 'suffered' or can also mean 'suffered (death)'? 86.142.224.71 (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Another question about DC Sniper

The US Supreme Court denied request to stay his execution and now I read that Governor Tim Kaine has denied clemency. Is there any other way he could be saved now? --Maru-Spanish (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)