That classic routine approach is all very well where you have a lot of knowledge of what is concerned, my point is I'm looking for useful heuristics where you do not have that knowledge. [[Special:Contributions/92.28.253.63|92.28.253.63]] ([[User talk:92.28.253.63|talk]]) 20:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
That classic routine approach is all very well where you have a lot of knowledge of what is concerned, my point is I'm looking for useful heuristics where you do not have that knowledge. [[Special:Contributions/92.28.253.63|92.28.253.63]] ([[User talk:92.28.253.63|talk]]) 20:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
:It seems pretty simple then: 1) Find someone who DOES know what to do. 2) Ask them to help you or do it for you. At some level, you need to either educate yourself or find someone who actually knows... --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 20:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
:It seems pretty simple then: 1) Find someone who DOES know what to do. 2) Ask them to help you or do it for you. At some level, you need to either educate yourself or find someone who actually knows... --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 20:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
::You don't "get it". Either nobody knows, or you don't have access to those few people who may know. Stavros is not going to tell you. [[Special:Contributions/92.28.253.63|92.28.253.63]] ([[User talk:92.28.253.63|talk]]) 21:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
This is related to [[Wicked_problem#Messes_and_social_messes]] where much of the problem is lack of knowledge. [[Special:Contributions/92.28.253.63|92.28.253.63]] ([[User talk:92.28.253.63|talk]]) 21:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
This is related to [[Wicked_problem#Messes_and_social_messes]] where much of the problem is lack of knowledge. [[Special:Contributions/92.28.253.63|92.28.253.63]] ([[User talk:92.28.253.63|talk]]) 21:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Revision as of 22:14, 3 May 2010
Welcome to the humanities section of the Wikipedia reference desk.
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.
There are some who will unwaveringly assert that the world was created from nothing nearly 6000 years ago, while others will assert unwaveringly that it was most certainly not. Anyway, that's not the main point. In 6000 years from now, what sort of historical events would be discussed, let's say, in a classroom of history students? Certainly we have but a pittance of events that have occurred over the past however many thousands of years that are of such seemingly eternal consequence that we teach them in the classroom today. But in the year 8000, what events would be important enough, considering that so many more things would have transpired? Will the Cold War, the Great Depression and people like Babe Ruth really matter in the scope of things? Or will it be that the average man will have heard of George Washington and George Bush but won't know the difference them any more than they do between, say, Socrates and Plato? DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)03:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its hard to say. You can't compare backwards to forwards because of the explosive growth in storage media. 6000 years ago, the only way that knowledge got preserved was via oral tradition, for the most part. Today, almost everything is preserved in a permanent or semi-permanent state all over the world. Information about me, an average nobody, is readily availible in public records, the few times I have appeared on TV or in a newspaper article, etc. etc. We have actual information of literally nobody from anything older than about 4500 years ago, and anything older than about 3500 years ago is basically things like lists of kings inscribed inside of temple ruins and things like that. There's probably more hard, preservable documentation of any random person alive today than there was of kings from the third millenium BC. --Jayron3204:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Egyptians and the Mayans had their hieroglyphs; the Sumerian had cuneiform; the Chinese had bone oracle. Yet millenia later many aspects of their culture and history still remain in mystery. Perhaps several millenia later our decendants will be left to ponder over the ruins of the Eiffel Tower or Burj Dubai wondering if they had been religious monuments, or devices to communicate with aliens. This of course is in the realm of science fiction and the Planet of the Apes series presented us such a scenario. George Washington or Julius Caesar will probably become the sort of (semi-) mythical figures like we think of Adam, Moses or Zeus. --Kvasir (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If in 6000 years, our descendants have a copy of Wikipedia, then we can be sure that the names of every professional wrestler and Pokemon of our era will be known to even the most innocent of babes. caknuck°needs to be running more often05:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that information preservation is at an all-time high so it's unlikely that denizens of the 9th millenium would be confused about anything about our culture or history. More to the OP's question is what events would people of the year 6000 consider to be important. I'd say some imporant firsts have occurred in our time, including the beginnings of space travel, of weapons of mass destruction, and concern of environmental impacts. Of course, FTL travel, planet destroying weapons, and terraformation technology would probably mean that our "firsts" are hardly such. — Ƶ§œš¹[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]05:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, that's assuming no mass destruction had sent human civilisation back to the Stone Age leaving the survivors to reinvent the wheel, let alone how to access Wikipedia from corrupted servers buried under miles of radioactive dust. Consider this well-known quote:
I think the truth lies somewhere in the knowledge each of us has about our great great grandparents. Names, dates, where they lived, what they did - but not much more. Kittybrewster ☎08:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if people have access to all the information of today, very little of it will make it to an ancient history 101 course. I think the key events from the last couple hundred years that will still be relevant to people in 6000 years are the end of colonialism, industrialization, globalization, the study of quantum physics, and the beginnings of user-generated content in mass media. I think the people who we remember will be those who personify those events, so maybe George Washington for colonialism, Henry Ford for industrialization, and Albert Einstein for quantum physics (or maybe the Large Hadron Collider and Hubble Space Telescope. As for globalization and user-generated content, I can't think of any one person for that, so maybe we will be remembered in general for that (go us?). People may also remember Adolf Hitler as a personification of evil, just like we think of Socrates as a personification of wisdom and Julius Caesar as a personification of power, although the details of the 20th century wars will be forgotten by all except for academics. I'm not sure what art people will still care about. They may remember that music started to become cooler in the early to mid 20th century and that movies were first invented around then, but I don't know which specific examples they'll have heard of. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention civil rights, especially the enfranchisement of women. That will still be notable in 6000 years, though I don't think any women was famous enough during that fight to be specifically remembered by the general population. --—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain the assassination of John F. Kennedy will be relevant in the future, just as we know about the assassination of Julius Caesar today. I also think the 1960s will be analysed for the amount of change generated over a short period of time (civil rights, feminism, gay rights, sexual freedom, the generation gap, anti-war protests, use of drugs, the fashions in dress, hair and music).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's somewhat Euro and US-centric. How many of us can recall the details of the death of Genghis Khan, whose empire was more extensive than Caesar's? And Khan was some 1200 years closer to us in history. How much does an average person today know about the 1560s? And that's only less than 500 years ago, never mind what we'll know or care to know in the year 8000. I think our knowledge will be categorised in centuries if not millenia. --Kvasir (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, events of 16th century Europe are pretty well documented. We know a lot about the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the French Wars of Religion, Battle of Lepanto, defeat of the Spanish Armada, Cortes and the fall of the Aztec Empire, the first English settlement in the New World, the Sack of Rome, Henry VIII his, six wives and his break with Rome, etc., etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I read the initial question as being about what the general public will remember, not what we have records of. Everyone remembers Julius Cesar, but the only people who know about 1560s fashion are people who have studied it. I highly doubt the general public will remember JFK. Julius Cesar founded the Roman Empire, his actions have ripples even through today. JFK's actions were much more limited in scope. Speaking as a non-American, I don't think I learned anything about him during my school years other than the fact that he was assassinated and that he had something to do with a standoff in Cuba. Had there been nuclear war, he might have been remembered for his failure, but as things turned out, I think today's youngest generation is already forgetting him outside of places in the US that are named after him. As for civil rights, I forgot to mention them, and they stand a good chance of being remembered. However, in 6000 years, I don't think that the 1960s will be singled out; we'll remember everything from the beginnings of the fight for women's suffrage in the 1890s through the legalization of gay marriage around the world as one cultural shift. I think that the shift in things like fashion in the 1960s will only be known by people who study that sort of thing, not by the population as a whole. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The interest in history, and particularly the interest in accurate, empirical history, is somewhat culturally specific. Not every culture has valued this kind of history. Many have preferred more mythological accounts or accounts that glorify the order of the day. So I don't think we can assume that people 6,000 years from now will even be interested in or aware of the events and people of our time. Certainly, a lot of information is stored these days, but how do we know that these records will be maintained into the distant future? Assuming people in the future are interested, we might ask ourselves what we know about the people of 6,000 years ago. Of course, writing did not really exist then, so our knowledge is limited. But what the average educated person knows about that time is not much more than the broad brush strokes: Agriculture was spreading in many parts of the world. The first urban societies were forming in the Middle East. People were beginning to ride horses on the Eurasian steppe. Beyond this, archaeologists can identify specific named cultures from that time, but that is specialized knowledge. So, 6,000 years from now, assuming anyone cares about our time, they may remember that a global civilization existed that was based on industrial production and the consumption of petroleum, that world population had reached an unprecedented (and perhaps unsustainable) level, that the threat of nuclear annihilation loomed, that people had traveled to the moon, and, perhaps, though this might be the concern of specialists, that East Asia had begun to challenge Europe and North America for global dominance. Details below this level of generalization would be the concern of specialists, if they exist. Marco polo (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and human babies would be born with an entire repertoire of human knowledge pre-loaded into their brains and ready to go. --Kvasir (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like your one-sentence summary, Marco polo, that about sums it up. I was being a bit generous assuming that a typical person would remember any people from today. However, I would add to your comment that if people then have a democratic system of government they may remember the 20th Century as the beginning of universal suffrage and the welfare state, and if they have motion pictures as entertainment there might be a 20th Century film clip that everyone has seen and thinks of as an early example of the medium. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More seriously, even if we have all this wonderful information, who is to say that anyone in 8k years can read it? English did not exist 8k years ago, and I would be a bit surprised if people would still be able to read it. How many modern Italians can read Latin, or even Medieval Italian? Googlemeister (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. As I pointed out earlier about hieroglyphs; cuneiform; or bone oracle, deciphering these ancient languages is now reserved to the realm of academia. --Kvasir (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It will be easier for people in 6000 years studying our languages, though, since we live in such a global society that there are large numbers of things written in multiple languages to serve the role of the Rosetta Stone. It is very likely that at least some of them will survive. --Tango (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They will remember World War II even if they forget WWI. It's the only time in our history that someone who could actually be labelled as evil tried to take over the world and almost succeeded. I mean sure Ghengis Khan might kill most of the people in your village but once you were conquered you were part of the empire and you were absorbed into the mongols. With Hitler you were slowly killed over a number of years.--92.251.243.109 (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "someone who could actually be labelled as evil tried to take over the world and almost succeeded" would be considered an accurate assessment of WWII by most historians. Germany wanted to take over Großdeutschland, yes, but this was not Hitler's vision alone; it was a reclaiming of lands which had formerly been part of the Prussian and German Empires, and which had been lost - very unfairly, in the minds of many Germans - under the Treaty of Versailles. WWI will certainly be remembered by future historians, because to historians both European wars are two phases of the same conflict. The war in the East too has tentacles reaching back into the 19th century and beyond. FiggyBee (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is all speculation, obviously, but I doubt we'll be remembered at all. Maybe Chernobyl. 6000 is an extraordinary long time. Even if we store everything we know remember this: We don't understand Etruscan, and that's only 2500-ish years old, so it's a bit much to expect future to figure out data out. Aaronite (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Modern languages have published way, way, way more than the Etruscans did, and having many publications makes it more likely that they'll be able to figure out our language. In the year 8000, in some arctic desert, people will find a multilingual copy of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and will use it as a Rosetta Stone. --—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any 8000 year-old paper now? I know that there is plenty now, but will any books last that long? With computers, the same applies. Aaronite (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A single copy doesn't have to last 8000 years. All that is required is for someone to make a new copy every now and then. Tax records and infomercials probably won't last 8000 years because somewhere along the line someone will decide that they're not worth copying, but the great works of literature (which may or may not include Harry Potter) will be backed up and copied for all eternity, apocalyptic events aside. FiggyBee (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that for the past century or so we've been able to record voices. That alone is/will be responsible for the lack of severe changes in language over the next few thousand years. Not only are vocal patterns essentially set in stone (we need a new saying - stored in flash?) but it's a lot harder for a given population to be by itself, develop a language without interaction from others, and then conquer some people and spread their speech. ~ Amory(u • t • c)00:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that recording technology (phonograms, radios, television, cinema, etc) and their dissemination has any impact on language and, from what I understand, some evidence that it has no impact. — Ƶ§œš¹[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]21:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that historians, teachers and authors rarely mention the numerous Germans who settled on the German Coast in 18th-century Louisiana? The majority of people with French ancestry also have German ancestors, especially on the maternal line as many Frenchmen took German wives. In fact, Gen. PGT Beauregard is one notable example; he's descended from the Wurtz family. They always mention the French and Spanish, but omit the Germans. Does anyone know why this is the case?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I was referring to the 18th and 19th centuries. Germans were compelled to Gallicise their names with surnames such as Boftz becoming Poffe, Gabel was Cable etc. It was as if the culture became totally lost and submerged by the dominant French. In fact, on old census records, German farmers were listed automatically as hog-raisers. By the way, the ancestress of Beauregard was Wiltz not Wurtz, sorry for my error. The Wiltz family was one of the prominent familes on the German Coast.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not accurate as intermarriage between Germans and French took place decades before the arrival of the Cajuns (c.1755). General Beauregard was not a Cajun, neither was his first wife who also had German ancestry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
how to read the koran
I'm embarking on reading the Koran over the next couple days/week (the copy I have is less than 500 pages including the index)and was wondering what order to read it in. Unlike other "scripture" I've read in the past from what I'm aware of, the Koran was put together mostly in order from longest to shortest stories - as opposed to the "chronological" order of the bible and the book of mormon. I'm not necessarily looking for the chronological order of the stories/books so much as a solid order to read them in. I've started reading at The Creator (around page 300 in my version) but if someone could offer a better method than random chance (which is how I ended up where I did) that would be super awesome. Thanks! flagitious 09:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flagitious (talk • contribs)
Note that the "Letters of Paul" in the New Testament are not even not all by Paul, but are also organized by lengths, not chronologically. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the only one that used to be ascribed to Paul and which is now accepted to not be ascribed to Paul is Letter to the Hebrews; most christians accept that its author is unknown. The other Pauline letters are pretty certainly written by him, because they usually start off something to the effect of "Hey, this is Paul here with my buddy Timothy. We're writing to y'all to tell you...." or something like that. He also often gives clues as to where he was when he was writing, and this info can be corroborated from external sources as to his travels. The "letters" portion of the Bible isn't ordered strictly by length, but rather by subject matter. The first batch of letters are Paul's letters to specific churches (the Church at Rome, the Church at Ephesus, the Church at Corinth, etc.) which except for Romans are usually written to instruct the church on how to deal with a specific problem they were having. Then are Paul's personal letters to church leaders, the so-called Pastoral epistles, and finally there are the letters from other church leaders, such as James and Peter and John. Hebrews doesn't really fit into any of that, even when the bible was organized, there was some question as to whether or not it was actually Paul that wrote it, which is why it was kinda tacked on in between the Pauline letters and the other letters; you could sort of group it either way. This is all discussed in the New Testament article. --Jayron3220:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not mainstream opinion. We have Authorship of the Pauline epistles, which is not bad. Fitting all the claimed travels of the letters (and the acts) together makes for a very implausible travel schedule. And of course "Hey I'm Paul" is no evidence at all - if you want that, I can provide you with letters by Einstein, Gandhi, and Elvis on how to live a good life. Not all of letters is sorted by length, but the "Pauline" section is (if you go by the Greek originals, of course (blandfaced bluff)). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there is no one right method - you know what will work for you! But here is some interesting reading for someone just starting to look at the book:
*Wikiislam gives the chronological order, should you wish to follow that.
*This blog post discusses how you may get a different impression of the text when reading in chronological order versus traditional order. (Plus recommends a good translation for those new to the book, although I know you already have one.)
In my opinion, there is very little value in reading the Quran cover-to-cover. About as little as, say, reading all the Hebrew prophets cover-to-cover.
You will just walk away with a sense of repetitive incoherent weirdness. It is much better to focus on a small portion and then read up on the background literature (commentaries, theological discussions, philology) on that, so you won't have read all and understand nothing but instead you will have read a little and understood a little.
Of course the cover-to-cover approach can be used either as a foundation for later study, or else as a shock therapy to cure any interest in religious scripture.
These comments apply to reading the Bible just as much as to reading the Quran. Just reading the text, especially when reading a translation (whose?) or reading the original without sufficient familiarity with the language will either produce morons (bible-thumpers, fundamentalists) or anti-theists, but it will not contribute to an understanding of religion or theology. --dab(𒁳)09:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is from right-to-left.
The best authority on the authorship of the letter to the Hebrews does not agree with the previous contributant. We always knew it was unsigned, and we do know the reason.
Original source of "I prefer rogues to imbeciles, as rogues sometimes rest" (Dumas)
There's a favourite quote of mine: "I prefer rogues to imbeciles, as rogues sometimes rest." - Alexandre Dumas (fils). I'm trying to track down the original work it comes from.
There are many web pages of author quotes. I've seen the French rendered as:
"J'aime mieux les méchants que les imbéciles, parce qu'ils se reposent." (seems to be the most common rendering)
"Je préfère le méchant à l'imbécile, parce que l'imbécile ne se repose jamais." ("because the imbecile never rests")
"Si je devais faire un choix, entre les méchants et les imbéciles, ce serait les méchants, parce qu'ils se reposent."
None of these indicate the source work, and some credit it to Dumas père rather than Dumas fils. Argh ...
(I also found a Yahoo! Answers page that suggests it was Dumas' response to Victor Hugo saying "The wicked envy and hate, it is their form of admiration.")
I have now been told that he didn't write it, it was something he said that was reported by others (and I was given the reference Léo Claretie: Histoire de la littérature française (900-1900): Le dix-neuvième siècle, so now all I need is a copy of that ...). So I can translate it fairly freely :-D - David Gerard (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Here's one possible lead. I tried your key words (méchants l'imbécile dumas) in google books: (sorry something weird with spaces in URLS is preventing me linking to the search result directly) and the result text for the second hit, La revue des deux mondes - Page 561 says: "Comme on parlait de la méchanceté humaine, Dumas dit : « Je préfère le méchant à l'imbécile, parce que l'imbécile ne se repose jamais". As it's Snippet view only, however, that's all I've got. If you can pinpoint any more details about the journal, someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request might be able to pull the issue and confirm... P.S. after EC - the resource request could probably also find the book you really need. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A somewhat similar thought has also been expressed by C.S. Lewis: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." God in the Dock (1948). Matt Deres (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, OP, that very general questions often get very general answers. It's hard to know what you're specifically looking for if you don't specifically ask. Dismas|(talk)21:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the current status of the marsh land in Southern Iraq and the Marsh Arabs and why was the marsh land drained in the first place, i.e., did the Marsh Arabs represent some kind of threat? 71.100.1.71 (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, maybe not. As was pointed out recently on a ref desk where someone was asking where the Garden of Eden was, the alleged worldwide flood (Noah's Ark, etc.) would likely have erased all traces of it, and there's no guarantee that the Tigris and Euphrates were the same before and after. Besides which, it's likely "Eden", metaphorically, was Africa. That's another story. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Eden was probably in Iraq, and its not unlikely that the Deluge was just a massive flood of the Tigris-Euprhates watershed. Most of Genesis comes from Mesopotamia, and lots of Genesis characters appear in mythologies outside of the Bible, for example the Abraham story appears in lots of traditions in the Middle East, not all of them Judeo-Christian in nature. The Kabba predates Islam, for example, and it was supposedly built by Abraham; that tradition goes back a long time. The Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh has many parallels to Genesis, for example. The Gilgamesh flood myth also shares parallels to not just Genesis, but other Mesopotamian epics. It is quite more likely that Mesopotamia is the setting for nearly all of the first part of Genesis, including the Garden of Eden stories; there would have been no connection to Africa and thus no reason to place Eden there. --Jayron3203:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in that other discussion, there are actually 4 riverbeds flowing into the Gulf, but only two of them now have water, although that accounts for the 4 rivers mentioned in Genesis. "Eden", as Africa, would be nostalgia for the hunting and gathering days ("living off God's bounty"), which in distant memory may have seemed like "paradise" compared to the drudgery of agriculture. The stories are centered on Mesopotamia, but that's where the people were anyway, and since the stories were filtered through hundreds of years of oral tradition, there's no telling what the original stories were. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the question archived? Wouldn't it have been better to just tell the OP that the ref desk doesn't answer homework questions, than lock the thread? For the benefit of the OP if they ever come back here, the standard response that should have been posted; "Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our policy here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know."82.43.89.71 (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My "problem" is with the unprofessional way the it was handled. I don't see where he was told that the Reference Desk doesn't answer homework questions. The only comment relating to homework was mocking the OP; "Aw... missing your homework deadline isn't the end of the world". And I also don't understand why it was archived in this way. Threads here on the reference desk are never archived like this. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me; I misread your "than lock it" as "then lock it" – that bit was my fault. However, as for cutting off this really stupid thread (the RefDesk says "no homework" at the top, which the OP should have read) – it was the appropriate thing to do, and I will not be engaging in further discussion about it.
It's not your place to decide which threads are "stupid" and which aren't. You are not the sold arbitrator of quality on the Reference Desk. I've unarchived the thread since your reasoning isn't just, and I'm collapsing this discussion. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a twisted argument. And about collapsing this meta discussion; it's standard practice here to collapse long discussions that are unhelpful to the OPs question, so that it doesn't detract from the original question. Anyway, I posted about this situation here if you would like to comment there. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see that, but it doesn't explain to the OP that the Reference Desk generally doesn't answer homework questions. And I still don't understand why the question was boxed in an archive template. If you feel the question should be removed for some reason, then post why on the talk page, otherwise leave it be. Locking threads like this just opens the door for anyone to start closing threads they have some issue with. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh me neither about locking it. But I just can't resist the humour seeing how desperate he/she was. I'm sure sooner or later our fellow ref. desk users will offer genuine help, whether or not within the 10-minute deadline. --Kvasir (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has an article on the Sonnet which is a poem of fourteen lines that follows a strict rhyme scheme and specific structure. That is as far as we can help the OP. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the best way to handle it (the OP's question), would have been to attempt to write some sonnets. Some editors did take this approach. It was not established that it was the OP's homework assignment, though it probably was. I would have liked to see some feedback from the OP. But a little sonnet-writing exercise would not have been a bad thing, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned this question to a friend who wrote this in less than 10 minutes, unfortunately long after the original post (I neglected to mention it was a bit old):
a sonnet we'll compose for you tonight
it seems you need one for your homework's "A"
we may not get the rhymes completely right
it sounds, though, like you need the thing today.
and so, in haste, we type these lines for you
(our best we do, than that we can no more)
we'll give you lines that are completely new
and hope they fit what we intend them for
of couplets we still lack another set
(when counting couplets, two lines count as one)
a couple rhyming lines remain as yet
and then th'assignment will be good as done
ten minutes we were given to assist;
forgive us if there's anything we've missed.
Macedonia has been trying to join the EU, but has been blocked mostly by Greece who feel that Macedonia should be part of Greece. With the current headache that Greece is giving the EU, would this increase the chances of Macedonia becoming part of the EU, or how has it affected MAcedonia, if at all. Also why is MAcedonia rarely mentioned as a potentail member when it is so completely part of Europe while Turkey, is often bandied about as soon to become part. Turkey is Asia, and Islamic, which are not in line with European culture, nothing against Asians and Islamicism, bust that it is Asian rather than European. Or am I completely wrong in my views of Turkey Thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Geographically speaking Turkey is one of these countries straddles over Europe and Asia. The Bosphorus is the traditional boundary between Europe and Asia, on which Istanbul sits right on top. Historically speaking, Istanbul used to be known as Constantinople, the seat of the Christian Church before the Great Schism. --Kvasir (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greece don't want the Republic of Macedonia to be part of Greece, they just want it to have a different name than Macedonia, because that is a Greek region. See the article Macedonia naming dispute for more about this issue. Regarding Turkey or Macedonia being closer to joining the EU: Remember that there isn't a queue. The negotiations with each candidate country go at different speeds and talks have been going on with Turkey since 1987, before the break up of Yugoslavia. Just because they have been talking for a longer time, it does not mean that they will join the EU before Macedonia, or ever. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source of the problem is that the area of the ancient country of Macedon covered areas that are today in both the Greek state of Macedonia and the country of Macedonia. The ancient kingdom was undoubtedly Greek, and became the most powerful Greek empire ever under Alexander the Great. However, the modern nation of Macedonia is a Slavic nation, with no cultural connection to the Greeks. The Greeks, who were basically denied their own country for 500 years, and particularly touchy about their culture, and take umbridge at a non-Greek people taking the name of an ancient Greek kingdom as the name of their country. The Greeks do not begrudge the Macedonians their own nation, or membership in international organizations, or anything like that. They just want them to call themselves something different. --Jayron3220:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Greeks have pretty much failed. At the UN it's still FYROM, but everywhere else it's the Republic of Macedonia, or simply, 'Macedonia' in popular usage. Someone who's talking about their upcoming European holiday and says they'll be visiting Macedonia, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Romania and Hungary would not be understood as visiting any part of Greece, but the Republic of Macedonia. Not even a Greek interlocutor would interpret them as visiting Greece. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GK question
I am looking for the structure
1. which is arguably the most famous religious facility on the planet (other than Vatican)
2. many view it as "sacred ground"
3. The early mission of this place was to provide shelter for Catholic missionaries and their converts
Based on #3, I would say that its the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, which, outside of the Vatican or Constatinople or Moscow or any of the other major patriarchates, is the single most important church in Christendom. It sits on what is supposedly Cavalry or Golgotha, that is the site of Jesus's crucifixion, and also purports to sit over the cave where Jesus was buried and rose from the dead. It was the focus of pilgramages by Christians for hundreds of years; when Muslims began to harass christian pilgrims and deny them access to the Church, it provided the impetus for the Holy Crusades. Since you only asked #1 the last time, you got a long list. Putting #1, #2, and #3 together, its most likely the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. --Jayron3220:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ALAMO!!! Fuck that! Arguably the most famous religious structure on the planet? I doubt many people outside of the U.S. have even heard of it, or even know much why it was famous. Whoever wrote that quiz has his head up his ass. Sorry, that is seriously the worst trivia question ever asked. I mean, its a famous structure, but seriously! It claims 5 million visitors a year. That's a lot, but it can't compare to other religious sites, even christian ones. That's just terrible. --Jayron3201:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then not the same people who put together a trivia night I went to about 3 years ago. The quizmaster, a school teacher, asked a question about which body part Alfred Hitchcock was missing. Not a single person in the room of about 80 people knew the answer. We were then let into the secret: one of his ears. Somewhat incredulously, I and some other people politely queried him where that information came from. His answer, delivered with a totally straight face as if the source made it unimpeachable and beyond all questioning, was "The Internet". I later googled it and found zero hits for Alfred Hitchcock missing an ear, and I also checked on his talk page here, to no avail. I'm still wondering where this nurturer of school children's minds got this "information" from, and what other choice gems of "knowledge" he's "teaching" his young charges. (Jack of Oz =) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The quiz question began "aside from the Vatican". That's kinda like saying, "aside from the Yankees, who has won the most World Series?" The quiz that was linked had some propaganda about the defenders of the Alamo "fighting for freedom", apparently unaware that the martyrs of the Alamo were essentially defending slavery. The Hitchcock thing is inexcusable, as there are plenty of photos of him to verify, although it's kind of a good metaphor for why verification is required in wikipedia. That guy probably also thinks there is still no Betty Rubble in Flintstone Vitamins. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well found. Yes, I think that explains it. I guess they felt a short Labour government was better than another election straight away. Thanks. --Tango (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony Wells, an experienced pollster, says "In 1974 the opinion of the Palace was that they would have been very hard pressed to refuse Wilson [a dissolution of Parliament] had he requested one." I take that to mean Wilson didn't request one; I imagine he believed the people would vote against him for the furore of two rapid elections. [Depending on what "they" you meant.] - Jarry1250[Humorous? Discuss.]19:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"They" meant the Tories. The Tories could have forced an election by voting down the Queen's Speech, but didn't. That must be because they didn't like the idea of another election. --Tango (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In effect Wilson's Government dared the Conservatives to vote against him on the Queen's Speech. Knowing that he would blame them for the constitutional deadlock (or immediate general election), and that he had succeeded in ending the 'three day week', the Conservatives decided that discretion was the better part of valour and did not vote on the motion. However this decision was arrived at very late, and the Conservatives had been prepared to vote and potentially bring the Government down: Tony Benn, who was then a senior Minister, wrote in his diary (19 March 1974) that it was Michael Foot's speech in the debate on 18 March which was decisive.
The Hansard for the debate is here. Note that the Opposition amendment is not directly a no confidence motion, but that it is so directly critical of Government economic policy that it would be difficult for the Government to accept defeat. The actual vote at the end was passed by 294 to 7: the 296 members to support (including tellers) were 294 Labour, and 2 Independent Labour (Eddie Milne and Dick Taverne; the 9 to oppose (including tellers) were 7 Scottish National Party and 2 Plaid Cymru. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a million years time
If humans last a million more years (I see no reason why we shouldn't but you never know, a million years is a ridiculously long time), will there still be different "races" or will everyone be similar?--92.251.243.109 (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consider how far we came over the last million years (if you believe in the theory of human evolution), I don't see why our planet won't be dominated by a species different than us, or that human has evolved to the point we would consider a different species today. --Kvasir (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)In a million years, we might not even be classified as "human" anymore; our last common ancestor with chimpanzees lived only three millions years ago. So if we aren't even talking about the same species, I think talking about race is a moot point. As for whether our species is homogeneous, I guess that depends on whether we keep increasing the amount of global immigration or become isolated again. And TreasuryTag, you're no fun :P. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But he has a very valid point. If we engage in this sort of speculation, how could we refuse to speculate on who's going to win the UK general election, or the Australian general election, or who's going to win the 2019 SuperBowl, or where the Olympics in 2064 will be held, or when JImmy Carter is going to die? There are no references for these sorts of questions, and we are a reference desk. We have to apply our rules consistently. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because those things can only be guessed. The question I am asking can be answered through logical argument, unlike election results etc. For example we can be almost certain that humans will leave this solar system if they last long enough, because they'll have to. That's an eternity away. Yet Icouldn't tell you how I'd do in an exam or w/e.--92.251.243.109 (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it can't be answered through logical argument. Your question started out "If humans last a million more years (I see no reason why we shouldn't but you never know ...". So, you're accepting the possibility that, for some reason, the human race may have ceased to exist within 1 million years. In that case, there will be no humans. Nobody can possibly predict that (a) there will be no World War III, or there will be no pandemic that wipes us all out, or there will be no alien invasion, or the Earth won't implode, and (b) some will have left the Solar System (god knows where that idea came from) but those who remain will have merged into a single "race". Since science already tells us there is only one human race, the whole question comes down to whether there'll ever come a time when we'll all "look the same", i.e. no separation between "caucasian-looking" people and "Asian-looking" people and "negroid-looking" people and whatever else; and whether that time will be before or after a million years from now. I don't think there's any possible way of knowing that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with providing sources or pointers as to what are some of the speculations. Like you say, we should give references, even if they are ABOUT speculations. Many credible sources/author/scientists give speculations frequently. Back to the OP, The 10,000 Year Explosion is a book that theorises human evolution has actually accelerated in "recent" years. --Kvasir (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules do you not understand? The spirit of the rule that for forbids predictions is to prevent soap-boxing. If legitimate sources can be given for speculative questions, WP:IAG should be applied because the questions don't violate the spirit of the reference desk rules. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to cite the same source I did in the 250 million year question: [3]. It predicts that skin colour will be essentially uniform in 1000 years time. --Tango (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't believe what you read in the Daily Mail. It's reputation for sensationalism, hyperbole and sometimes outright lies, don't make it a good source for this kind of speculation. Astronaut (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While such a question as posed by the OP can't be truly answered, it is possible to scrape together some information that should be relevant to beginning to think about the question. For instance the point (made by one editor) that our common ancestor with chimpanzees was found about 3 million years ago, is an interesting way of putting perspective on the question. Bus stop (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mail were just reporting the work of an academic. It was all over the mass media at the time, the Daily Mail just happened to be the first hit Google found. --Tango (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe there would. Different races are a product of different landscapes, and the Sahara desert, for example, isn't going anywhere in a million years. Vranak (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not 100% clear that racial difference is entirely due to physical environmental constraints. And the increased human mobility in even the last 500 years would point towards the old model being inapplicable to some degree. (People in North America are not going to start looking like the Native Americans did.) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. But the sun will still be shining brightly in Rio while Churchhill, Manitoba residents won't have quite so much use for melanin. Vranak (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the Sahara desert, for example, isn't going anywhere in a million years" isn't at all true. The Sahara oscillates with global climate, and has been very different, and entirely un-desert-like, relatively recently. This article describes the Sahara area 10,000 years ago, at the earlier part of the Holocene interglacial. Savannah in the north, and in the wetter south "lush vegetation, hearty trees, and permanent freshwater lakes persisted over millennia" with "well established human settlements, including ... domesticated livestock". From a human geography perspective, that's entirely unlike the current desert, and poses no barrier to population movement or mingling. The same is true for many geographical barriers - consider the English Channel before, during, and after the Pleistocene glaciation (maps). Shallow hydrological features like the Sahara are created and destroyed over a much shorter period of time than a million years. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk18:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that is true, but the point I am getting at is that the Earth will always have a great assortment of different climates and landscapes, and as a result, yes, there will be 'racial differences' that parallel said landscapes. Vranak (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that such landscapes, as we move forward into the future, are becoming less and less of a barrier to movement. --Jayron3203:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scientists sometimes speculate on this kind of thing, but it's pretty much impossible to know. The answer will depend entirely on conditions that we can't predict. Do the people of the future lose their ability to quickly travel all over the globe? Does travel increase to such a degree that reproduction between existing "races" becomes exceptionally common? Does consumer genetic technology allow the rich the tailor-make their own gene pool and institute class divisions on a biological level? All of these things would give you probably different scenarios. The problem can't be answered scientifically to any degree, because a million years is a long time for a species. We just can't extrapolate that far. We can maybe come up with a few different models for the next 100 years given certain assumptions. But a million years? The possible models will have such large margins of error that they are basically worthless. We can't even predict what will happen with nuclear waste repositories in a million years with much accuracy, and those can be basically assumed to "just sit there". We have a hard time modeling human gene flow right now, and trying to model it into the far future is just speculation, not science. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll find a way to change skin and hair colour and even shape as easily as we get tattoos now and people will start to look extremely different,in some cases not even human.88.96.226.6 (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can people be so sure that Roman busts are named correctly? For example those of Cicero or Cleopatra? At some point they were presumably dug out of the earth. Who is to say who they are? They could be anybody. 78.149.181.41 (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be surprised. Many of the urban centers in Italy have been populated continuously since the Roman Empire. Rome, Ravenna, Milan, and Naples have all been major urban centers for 2000 years. Statues of Cicero or Julius Caesar would have always had thousands of people who could tell you "That's Cicero" as locals passed such knowledge down through the generations. Many of these have not been dug out of the earth, but have instead simply been in place and known for thousands of years. In cases where an unknown statue is dug out of the earth, we can often identify by comparison to existing statues. And then there's the fact that, like modern artists, some of the ancient sculptors put big labels on their busts or statues that said things like CICERO or IULIUS CAESAR which would make it rather easy to identify them. For the emperors, at least, we also have coinage that bears their likeness, which can sometimes be used for identification purposes. --Jayron3219:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are also aesthetic conventions. For instance, Augustus was very often shown with eight strands of hair on the fronthead, four right and four left. So when a statue with that kind of hairdo is found, it's probably one of Augustus. To the Roman sculptor, these distinctive features were probably what Hitler's mustache was to WW2 caricaturists. --Alþykkr (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A statue of Constantine (the great Christian emperor) was safe from mediaeval Christian fanatics who from time to time wanted to melt down and/or destroy most pagan symbols. I wouldn't be surprised that those educated few who knew better were simply telling a white lie: "Yes, this is the statue of Constatine, the Christian." to the mad mobs. However this is only my personal theory. Flamarande (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some other ways of identifying an imperial statue could be: some statues have an inscription, some statues may be recognisable from the image on a coin, some statues are part of a datable structure, and some statues are mentioned in contempory writing. Alansplodge (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be confused with Imperial statutes, which are laws passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom (as opposed to the parliament of a colony or former colony of the UK). (Which reminds me: I was recently asked to sign a "Statuary [sic] Declaration", but when I drew the spelling error to the attention of the person concerned, they couldn't see that there was any need to change it or make any issue of it. They could hardly even understand that there was a difference between 'statutory' and 'statuary', or if there was, it was too trivial to worry about - I guess I was talking to the wrong person.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't always know. It takes a lot of historical work to establish what something from the past is, and how well we know that. Careers are sometimes made and unmade on the basis of identifications of this sort. It's hard work and requires looking at a huge amount of material. To an outsider it looks arbitrary, but that's because nobody generally wants to have a dissertation pinned to every statue. The designations are not always correct, but they are never arbitrary. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
April 29
Utensils used for writing in the 1890's
Im trying to figure out what poor black tobacco workers would have used to write in a classroom setting in the 1890's in Tampa, Florida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.191.110 (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Yezedi sect is an ancient esoteric Kurdish religion whose beliefs can be traced to paganism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam. They believe that God created the world from the spot of the Sheik Adi shrine in AIN SIFNI, IRAQ which has a sculpted black snake next to the doorway they consider sacred. They say they have been recently threatened by militant Muslims who believe they worship the devil. What do these people worship or believe to be divine; the snake, the devil, the spot of the Shrine, since the snake is not mentioned in the article but clearly appears carved next to the doorway and is their belief the same as the belief of some Americans that the dog is divine? Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"That part" has two sources. The first is the factual and historical event of King George(?) throwing a pup at the colonists when they requested he give them a Bishop. The second is the amount of time, devotion and money spent on dogs in the US, including court cases to save dogs that have been arrested from being turned into part of the air they breath, turned into bio-char or dissolved in sodium hydroxide for biting the constable. Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really believe that the religion of the US is primarily determined by a monarch's smart-ass joke hundreds of years ago? A monarch against whom we waged a revolutionary war? -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that some Muslims look down on Westerners because some are devoted to dogs as pets. Dogs are considered disgusting and unclean in many Muslim countries. Marco polo (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just so there's no doubt: No, I don't know of any Americans who literally worship their dogs in a religious sense. However, "worship" can also have the wider meaning of showing adoration of affection, in which case a minority of Americans could probably be said to "worship" their dogs (and a minority could be said to worship their cats, hamsters, spouses, etc.). The term Furbaby comes to mind: undoubtedly, some pets are spoiled, though I don't think it's exclusive to the United States. And I agree with Marco Polo: many Muslims may not agree with the amount of affection that some Americans give to their dogs. See Islam and animals#Dogs. This is an arbitrary break to separate my signature from my link. Buddy431 (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At one time I got to the point in high school where I almost worshiped cars and I still meet people who worship animate and inanimate things in the sense of constant thought and attention and as a matter of fact the point of the question is to understand the difference in Holy and secular worship better. Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might have just told us the point of the question at the outset. Have you read our article Worship and the sub-articles? (Granted, the article is about the religious aspect.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a native speaker of American English, one of the Southern(ish) dialects, I find the first two to be similar. In my understanding of English, it is as follows: A revolution is, in my mind, when the people overthrowing the government win and establish their own government. Also, I have heard it to be expanded to a peaceful exchange of power, such as a Democratic Party candidate winning against an incumbent GOP candidate (or vice versa). A coup is a revolution, although the people have not managed to establish a firm government, or have not held it long enough to be stable. Essentially, a coup does not become a revolution until the history books deem it such. A mutiny is the overthrow of power on a smaller level, such as sailors overthrowing the captain's power, or any group of people deliberately rearranging the social order of their group against conventions. This would not apply to a government. A riot, to me, is just a mob of out of control people; it is usually violent, without a strategy, and with no clear leaders. To me, a riot implies a clear lack of any kind of organization. Hope this helps. Falconusptc04:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that a coup is distinguished in that it is carried out by a small group (perhaps acting directly against the heads of the existing government), whereas a revolution implies widespread support (and perhaps large battles between a revolutionary army and the existing government's one). In particular if the existing government's army leaders turn against the government using the army, it is normally called a coup, specifically a military coup. Of course, the people who carry out a coup may choose to describe it as a revolution if they want to be seen as aligned with the general public. --Anonymous, 05:11 UTC, April 30, 2010.
I think the Russian Revolution (s) had more of a long-term effect than the French considering they overthrew an entire system (Tsarism and Orthodoxy) and replaced it with Communism. Read the article to get the estimate for the number of deaths which followed in the aftermath of the Bolshevik's assumption of power. The French replaced the Bourbons for a while with a Directory and Consulate (with Napoleon at its head) only to later accept the same Bonaparte as emperor!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A revolution usually involves completely replacing the existing state. You have a completely new governance system and everything starts almost from scratch. A coup involves part of the existing state seizing control and they usually keep much of the existing structure, replacing just the top part. A mutiny is military people working together to disobey their superiors. A riot is the complete breakdown of law and order due to the public rebelling against the state out of general displeasure. A riot is distinguished from a revolution by the lack of organisation and purpose. --Tango (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Riots are usually short-term affairs, whereas revolutions last until there is a total replacement of the existing government and social orders. Normally revolutions are preceded by both riots and mutinies until the entire system of government breaks down and is overthrown. No revolution can take place without the active cooperation of the military. That was how Tsar Nicholas was forced to abdicate; all his loyal troops had been slain in the early battles of WWI; by 1916 and 1917, the new recruits in the armies and navies were ripe for mutiny. Rasputin's malign influence hadn't helped matters either.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This list should be made a changeable chart, by date, size of spill, alphabetical order, depending on the viewer's need, but I don't know how to do it. Anyone? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You posted this to the wrong place and you were told where to go in future, by a person nice enough to help you out. I imagine there are more than a few editors to the ref desks who have just told you to eff off to the right place. Wouldn't kill you to say thank you--Jac16888Talk04:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help. No thank you for the preaching. The "In the future, questions on how to do stuff while editing wikipedia are best asked at Wikipedia:Help desk." was helpful. Even as a 4 1/2 year editor, I find that this place is not always the easiest to navigate. The "These desks are for finding articles about stuff, i.e. stuff that is written in Wikipedia." was overkill, subtle but tangible telling me "to eff off" in your own way. But yes, thank you for pointing me in the right direction. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't overkill at all. You showed no evidence that you knew you were posting in the wrong place. If we don't tell you what this desk is for, how would you ever find out? 212.219.39.146 (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to this[5] the cookie selling started in 1917, so it's possible they were selling cookies in WWII, although one would think their efforts would have been redirected to something that would support the war. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this article about the Girl Scouts’ founder, Juliette Gordon Low, it says: “During both World War I and World War II, Girl Scouts served their country on the home front collecting waste fat and scrap iron, growing Victory Gardens, and selling defense bonds.” Bielle (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or "war bonds" as they were called until after WWII when the P.R. department took over. Every American was expected to participate in the war effort in some way. Things have changed since then. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will presume you are referring to the Girl Scouts of the USA, as most other organizations are known as Girl Guides. The GSUSA site states "Girl Scout Cookies were sold annually by local councils around the country until World War II, when sugar, flour, and butter shortages led Girl Scouts to begin selling Girl Scout calendars to raise money for their activities."[6] Both the BSA and GSUSA sold war bonds, but not for profit. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk13:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Girl Scout cookies were sold in the US throughout World War 2.They were sold in May, 1942. That year they were sold 48 to a box, in either vanilla or chocolate flavors. They were sold in 1943, with a limit of 2 boxes per customer since a typical council might have gotten reduced amounts of cookies to sell. By 1943, Girl Scouts were also collecting fat in cans with their label on them, were making sandwiches and scrapbooks for USO, were helping with Civil Defense preparations, were selling War Bonds, were babysitting children of defense workers, and were working on farms. In 1943 they also sold calendars for 25 cents, at a 15 cent profit. They sold cookies in 1944, with some districts selling more boxes than in 1943: [7]. In 1945, the cookie sales (concluded beforer the end of the war) had a larger volume of sales than in 1944 [8]. Thus Girl Scout cookie sales in the U.S. continued throughout World War 2. Thus the GSUSA information is misleading at best, in implying that they sold calendars instead of cookies during WW2, rather than selling calendars in addition to cookies. Edison (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read something on the internet that before the Zhou Dynasty, China was ruled by black Africans. This seems really weird cause their are no trace of them left. Is this supported by archaeology and genetics? Has anybody taken a DNA sample of a Neolithic Chinese or someone in a Shang Dynasty tomb? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.113.157 (talk • contribs)
After searching for references to a black leader of the Zhou Dynasty, I have found that the claim stems from an old myth and an error of translation. The myth is that there was a leader of the Zhou Dynasty named Shang Li who was conceived when a black bird impregnated his mother. Obviously, this is a myth and not true. Then, Li is translated as meaning "black", but that is wrong. It actually means chestnut tree. -- kainaw™11:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
corn
I recall seeing somewhere on the ref desk, or perhaps elsewhere on wikipedia, that 'corn' doesn't necessarily mean the sweet yellow kernals that come on a 'cob'(aka maize). Knowing this, when I came across a reference to corn while reading the Koran, I mentally filed it away as meaning wheat or barley. However, I came across another corn reference, but this time it included the mention of "ears":
"Those that give their wealth for the cause of God can be compared to a grain of corn which brings forth seven ears, each bearing a hundred grains."
It's between 2:260 and 2:263 (the Cow/Al-Baqara). My question is: is this an aberrant translation or are wheat and barely also referred to as having ears or is this proof that God exists because he fortold of the future existance/discovery of corn to Muhammad? --flagitious 08:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks. --flagitious 09:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Such confusion is not uncommon. When I was a kid, "corn" was always wheat, and I assumed this is what the Americans on TV shows meant when they said "corn". It was only when I travelled to the USA as an adult, that I realised the "corn" the Americans were talking about was the same thing that I had always known as sweetcorn. It is only very recently, here on Wikipedia, that I find out "corn" is the name traditionally given to "... the most important cereal grain of a region". In light of this, it seems obvious that the Koran is talking about ears of wheat or barley, rather than any discovery of varieties of maize and subsequent proof of god. Astronaut (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Corn means, basically "any small morsel-like thing", and is a cognate to the word kernel, which is the term Americans use when the rest of the world uses "corn", simply because in America "corn" usually means "maize". Thus we have John Barleycorn (who may or may not die), corns on your feet, Corned beef, which refers to the granules of salt used to preserve it, peppercorns. --Jayron3220:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Latinate languages tend to use "C" where northern european langauges use "H". It was part of a great linguistic shift that occured in the Indo-European family some time ago. Hence, English "Heart" = French "coeur" = Spanish "corazon". The french name for the English Horn is the Cor Anglais, etc. It is likely that the horn/corn distinction exists for all of the usages of both "horn" and "corn". --Jayron3221:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umm. I don't think there is a "horn/corn" distinction. "Horn" and Latin "cornu" come from a root Pokorny gives as k'er- meaning "upper part of the body". "Corn", "kernel" and "grain" (Latin "granum") are from g'er- "grain": there is no connection between the two roots. (I'm using "k'", "g'" for palatalised "k", "g" - I can't find the symbol Pokorny uses) and the etymology of cor anglais is much more interesting than that--ColinFine (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
whenever I see this question, I'm always surprised that people forget about the ubiquitous 'Corn Flakes', which (of course) are made of wheat. corn flakes made out of what American's call corn would likely be fairly disgusting. --Ludwigs206:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polls close at 10pm BST on Thursday (2100 UTC). Exit polls which should give a very accurate picture of the results will be released immediately after that. Constituencies will then begin releasing results as fast as they can count them, with the first coming in half an hour or so and the bulk somewhere in the early hours of the morning. Almost all results should be in by the following morning, with the exception of a few logistically difficult (mostly Scottish) constituencies, which might take up to a couple of days, and Thirsk and Malton (UK Parliament constituency), where the election has been delayed for three weeks by the death of a candidate. As for when the new government will be known, with a hung parliament almost certain that's anyone's guess. Algebraist11:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember the last election correctly, the first couple of constituencies to declare usually do it around 11.15 p.m. (there's a couple of small constituencies in the north-east, Co Durham area, I think, who traditionally race each other to get the first results announced). Then there's usually a gap to around midnight, when things start to speed up. If a party is going to get an absolute majority of seats it is likely to happen around 3-4 a.m., though judging from the polls that's fairly unlikely this time. Northern Irish and some remote Scottish constituencies don't start counting until Friday morning, with the last results being announced around 4 or 5 p.m. Unfortunately I've not been able to get next Friday off work, so I won't be staying up all night to watch the results as I usually do! -- Arwel Parry(talk)16:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, looking at Sam's list of expected declaration times, it appears that Northern Ireland will be counting immediately this time, which is a change from past practice! -- Arwel Parry(talk)16:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese poems, direction of reading
Hi all,
I have been wondering about the following: Chinese poems, and also other texts, often have a very regular structure, which from the outset does not really make clear whether they are supposed to be read vertically or horizontally, especially if one ignores punctuation marks. example here. Have there been any authors who have made use of this feature by composing texts which can be read both horizontally and vertically (without turning the book first or similar transformations), and still make some sense? Yaan (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible to say that nobody has ever done that, but nobody that is popular has done it in a popular way. It would be extremely difficult. Very little Chinese is a single character. Most words are two characters. Some are three (or more). So, it is only slightly less complicated that trying to put English letters in a rectangular box such that they make sense when reading down and when reading across. It is possible, just not easy to make anything useful. -- kainaw™11:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that in classical Chinese single-character words are much more common, so I don't think it is that difficult if one is ready to not write in the vernacular. Yaan (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Classical Chinese, which is single-character, was written long before influence of left-to-write writing was introduced. Take an example like Li Bai. He was writing in the mid 700's. It would be another thousand years before there could be any influence of left-to-right writing. By then, use of single-character writing was already replaced with multiple character writing. There are, in modern times, some people who try to hack together something that appears to be classical single-character Chinese poetry. As such, I am sure there has been someone who has made something that can be read in two (or more) directions. As I said, nobody who is popular has done it in a very popular way. If it were done in a mildly popular way, I would strongly suspect the author to be Japanese writing in what they call Kanji, not Chinese. -- kainaw™12:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, that is Korean, not Chinese. Second, horizontal writing was not unknown. Many banners were written in "hengpai" (horizontal writing). If it was left-to-right or right-to-left was not important. According to our article, right-to-left was prominent until WW2. Popularity of hengpai was very low because banners/flags were hung vertically. Europoean influence increased popularity of horizontal banners and, therefore, increased popularity of hengpai. -- kainaw™14:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Palindromic poems and sayings has been done in Chinese. Just can't think of an example now. There is my elementary school motto in classical chinese, a near palindrome when read outloud in Cantonese: 爾識真理 真理釋爾 . Came from John 8:32 (Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.) I thought it's the neetest thing. The Chinese Union Version of the same verse is the more wordy prose: 你們必曉得真理，真理必叫你們得以自由 。--Kvasir (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in the above link, but in a recent documentary it said the Polynesians oriented their maps with west at the top; apparently because the direction to the sunset was important for their navigation across the Pacific Ocean. Interestingly, the scale used on the map also emphasised the importance of each island to their culture, rather than their physical size. Astronaut (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm intrigued as to what you would use as the axes. I can see that FUNDAMENTALIST <-> INTERPRETIVE/NON-LITERAL might be one axis but what about the other? INCLUSIVE<->EXCLUSIVE perhaps, but you could equally have WORSHIP<->ACTIONS, CONGREGATIONAL<->INDIVIDUAL or loads of other possibilities. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A graph detailing the nutritional properties of nuts and oily seeds.With a multitude (no pun intended) of axes I suppose you could resort to any of the tricks used with other types of comparative data like the one for nuts (no pun intended). or even a triangular or multi-sided grid. Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the number of higher beings? Atheism -> Buddhism -> Judaism(*) -> Islam -> Trinitarian Christianity -> Catholicism (all those Saints and angels ;-) -> Hinduism -> Ancient paganism. (*) I count someone who has to cheat to wrestle down Jacob as at most 1/2 of a higher being *duck*. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The political compass article is mostly about liberal and conservative. So you might put Unitarian at one end and Missouri Synod Lutheran at the other end, for example. Or Reform Judaism at one end and Orthodox Judaism at the other. I'm assuming that's what he means by "extremes"? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason Satanism is not included is that even though it only has one "head" he's not ALL powerful. Furthermore, he is not all knowing but he does treat the congregation well, which is kind of an oxy-moron since he is supposed to be bad, ...err for good people. The real problem is that members of the congregation don't get to travel to somewhere else when they die. Also it's not very well organized. Policies are usually great but some of the places picked for meetings can really suck. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Satanism is actually that it is just a bunch of crap made up by a crazy guy. And while, if you like, that is true of all religions, Satanism doesn't even have thousands of years of tradition to use an excuse. They might as well be Mormons. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd second Adam Bishop's statement if one were to change Satanism to the Church of Satan. I certainly always got the sense that it wasn't really a religion, but was founded to tweak the noses of the Establishment. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to better understand what Adam Bishop means by "They might as well be Mormons." I've read the post several times, and the best I can come up with is that the potency of Satanism's "crap" is increased by it being relatively new, much like Mormonism's "crap." Just wondering if, as a Mormon, I should take offense or not. (Wink.) Kingsfold (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remember hearing about some people who lost their jobs because of machines. They made clothes I believe, and I think they were French. They then proceeded to bomb the buildings with the machines in them. Jabberwockgee (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weavers in France were just as upset about losing their livelihood to machines as those in England. When Joseph Marie Jacquard completed his first machine looms in Lyon, a crowd smashed one of his machines, hanged his effigy and dragged him along the quayside with the intention of drowning him before he was rescued[10]. Alansplodge (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google has failed me on this. Such maps do exist in published reports because I've seen them, but can't remember specifically where. This map of the UK rail network may help identify places where times to London can be checked from, using a site like this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That map, and the other maps on that site also, leaves out many of the small rural stations where the trains usually or sometimes stop. 92.29.142.124 (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised by that comment - certainly in the remoter parts of Wales and SW England the map shows many very small and infrequently served rural stations, so perhaps there is a regional issue. Of course, the map does not show detail within the inset areas (shown by rectangles), which are shown on other maps on that site. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, the map you linked to does show all the stations that I thought were missing, at least outside the boxes. I must have been looking at other maps. 78.151.115.180 (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Antichrist quote... what does Nietzsche mean?
What does Nietzsche mean when he says "The word Christianity is a misunderstanding. There was only one Christian that ever lived, and he died in the cross". What's the context, exegesis behind this quote? Thanks.--72.178.134.135 (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that one quote, Nietzsche is stating that Christianity (as a religion) is not what Jesus taught or lived by. In his works, he states that Paul (Saul) invented Christianity with Jesus being nothing more than a figurehead. This is often referred to as the Pauline Conspiracy. Nietzsche also states that "faith" doesn't exist. It is a shroud for natural instincts. When a person acts on instinct and doesn't fully understand why, the person claims to be acting on faith. Finally, Nietzsche claimed that God, as described in Christianity, is dead because the stories of God are no longer believable. There is a hell of a lot more to Nietzsche's work, but that is a very small overview related to that quote. -- kainaw™01:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested in knowing how many people stopped believing in God after reading Nietzche's words. I can accept why a person, whom after much profound thinking, evaluation, and personal reflection, decides to become an athiest (albeit I happen to disagree with atheism); however, I cannot understand how someone could reject God just based on some philosopher's POV.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to note that Nietzsche's quote "God is dead" did not mean that there was no supreme creator. He was writing about Christianity. He was stating that the "God" discussed in Christianity was not the "real God" and that Christianity's God was no longer believable. Most of his writings were nothing more than claiming that the Christian church was a fraud. He wasn't saying there was no God and Jesus didn't exist. He was saying that the Christian church had it all wrong. So, if someone reads his writings and becomes atheist, they've missed the point entirely. The goal is to read his works and become non-denominational. -- kainaw™11:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries came about not on account of Christianity, but because of the different denominations of Christianity, who thought their version of Jesus and his writings was the Supreme Truth. It got to the point where an entire new religion could be founded on the basis of one single scripture in the Bible! Didn't Voltaire say of the Englsh that they were a nation "with over a hundred religions and one sauce?!"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nietzsche devoted a fair few words to how people have and would continue to misunderstand him. This discussion, apart from the first response, only shows to me how right he was on this issue. Vranak (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no, BBB, that's wrong. understanding is never passive. A reader has to reach out and engage a work; if s/he just reads it as though it needed no thought or interpretation, s/he will inevitably miss the point.
with respect to Neitzche and religion, Neitzche had no real opinion about metaphysics, except that he felt that most people were blinded to truth by what he viewed as empty mythologies. He would have respected someone who 'felt God's presence' because feeling that is an experiential act very different from mere belief. God is dead in Neitzche's view precisely because people accept the stories they are handed about God with no thought or reflection. I suspect that Neitzche saw himself as a sort of Messiah-figure, trying to show people philosophical truths but opposed by Pharisee-like Christian authorities who have a vested interest in keeping the masses blind and ignorant. At least, that theme tends to run through a lot of his work. --Ludwigs207:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I find annoying about those who profess a profound belief in Jesus, God, saints, miracles, Virgin Mary's tears, etc., will scoff at people who have seen and felt the presence of ghosts. Most religious people do not believe out of genuine conviction, but out of ignorant superstition and fear of the unknown. Try talking to a Catholic priest about the possibility of ghosts, and watch how they freak out! It's really laughable. If something occurs outside the realm of the Church it's not acceptable (in their eyes).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That hasn't been my experience of talking to Catholic priests: the ones I've talked to have tended to be well-educated in the area of religion and metaphysics, and quite willing to discuss the reasons behind what they believe to be true and not true. Even when discussing topics on which we profoundly disagreed (such as the ordination of women), they had obviously considered the topic with care and had reasoned thoughts on the topic, grounded in wide reading on the subject. They listened to my reasoning, and clearly actually processed what I was saying, even if they disagreed. Obviously, experience is going to vary as different priests are different people, but I found a conversation on "what do you do if someone tells you they are possessed by demons or God tells them to do things" extremely interesting, showing a level of careful thought on the subject completely at odds with your apparent experience. 86.178.225.111 (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, priests are people like anyone else. Actually, I did have an interesting chat with a priest about astrology and he conceded that it was a science and not contrary to Catholic doctrine, once I pointed out that astrology merely acts as a guide but does not compel one to fulfill an absolute destiny (which is of course in the hands of God, according to Christianity).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't express opinions about things you know nothing about. Astrology is not a science; it has never used the scientific method, its claims don't have a shred of supporting evidence (and in fact, have been extensively disproven), and for most "astrologers" it is nothing more than a scam used to make money. Sure, astronomy came from astrology in the same way that chemistry came from alchemy, the heliocentric model came from the geocentric model, and modern democracy came from ancient tribal society, but that doesn't mean astrology=astronomy, or chemistry=alchemy, or heliocentrism=geocentrism, or democracy=tribal society. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dearest IP 99, I've been studying astrology since I was 11 years old, and therefore I damn well do know what I'm talking about. Astrology dates back to the ancient Chaldeans, and I have debated the validity of astrology on many occasions. So before you continue your calvacade on your anonymous high horse, why not register with a proper user name instead of editing with an IP as a shield to hide behind when you fire off your pathetic insults!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have been studying astrology for that long, surely you'd know that:
As I said earlier, astrologers do not follow the scientific method.
Twins born very close in time and location do not show similarities in personality that can't be explained by chance.
Personality descriptions made by astrologers are often seen as accurate because they're so vague and compliment clients to such an extent that MOST people would claim they're accurate, even if the description wasn't made for them.
The long history of astrology is an argument against it, not for it. How many scientific laws have the ancients provided us? Compare this with the number proven wrong by modern science.
BTW, I suppose you don't know that registered users enjoy more anonymity, not less. Anybody can trace my IP, figure out where I live, what my ISP is, and with a bit of underhand dealing, my exact identity. It takes much more effort for me to figure out so much as what continent you live on. So rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks while totally ignoring my arguments, and showing off your ignorance about the anonymity of IP users in the meanwhile, how about proving how astrology is a science? --99.237.234.104 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the study of priests some are exorcists some are parish priests some are hospital priests some teach and some do other jobs. The exorcist does not wish to talk about his work, the hospital priest cannot talk about his work and all the others cannot be too specific, lips being scealed, etc. If you ask a priest about the ghosts he encountered he may not want to talk about it as it raises memories he would rather forget, or in the case of demons recall them to answer! The study of the stars to tell the future is mentioned in Isaish Chapter 47, v.13. The boundary stones of The Babylonians' show the emblems of many gods, the origins of the signs of the zodiac, hence forbidden to the Christian. MacOfJesus (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To draw an example:
If you were to meet your Bank Manager coming home from the Bank and ask him/her about money matters, you might get short-change! No?
If you were to meet the priest coming out of the confessional after spending 4 hours hearing confessions, and ask him the questions you are proposing, including Neithzsche's work, you might get some prayers said! A dissertation on ghosts, deamons, etc. Including; "Women priests, and you do look tired, father!".
As I understand it; Astronomy is the scientific study of the stars or star, to understand their nature. Whereas, Astrology is the study of the stars, as they appear to us in formation, to tell us about the future and where we fit in with the gods.
It might help to look at the immediate context of the quote:
The very word "Christianity" is a misunderstanding—at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The "Gospels" died on the cross. What, from that moment onward, was called the "Gospels" was the very reverse of what he had lived: "bad tidings", a Dysangelium. It is an error amounting to nonsensicality to see in "faith", and particularly in faith in salvation through Christ, the distinguishing mark of the Christian: only the Christian way of life, the life lived by him who died on the cross, is Christian.... To this day such a life is still possible, and for certain men even necessary: genuine, primitive Christianity will remain possible in all ages.... Not faith, but acts; above all, an avoidance of acts, a different state of being.... States of consciousness, faith of a sort, the acceptance, for example, of anything as true—as every psychologist knows, the value of these things is perfectly indifferent and fifth-rate compared to that of the instincts: strictly speaking, the whole concept of intellectual causality is false. To reduce being a Christian, the state of Christianity, to an acceptance of truth, to a mere phenomenon of consciousness, is to formulate the negation of Christianity. In fact, there are no Christians.
As I read it, he's saying that the true Christian is set apart from others by virtue of his actions, not his beliefs, and combines this with the sweeping criticism that Christ was the only real "man of action", and that all who claim to follow him are worshipping him as a postulate of "faith" rather than as a matter of moral conviction through their actions. The "true" Christian is one who does as Christ did - and there have been precious few of those. --Aryaman(talk)12:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In these cases it is often best to go back and look at the history of the word; "Christian", where it comes from and how was it used originally. The Acts of the Apostles explains its first use, and how it was used. (I have referred to this in the Saint Paul article page). Of course we are not perfect as Jesus, the sinless One, and we will always fall short. Saint Peter had a poor beginning in denying Jesus three times, but Jesus did'nt dismiss him! The others, exept the women, all ran away, exept John and Simon the Zealot we believe, there is still hope for us; "lesser christians".
Have you studied the article page on C.G. Jung, and his envolvement with the addict?
That was one of the clearest statements made by any of the 19th century German philosophers. N. normally meant what he said unless punning or joking. Let's hope no one asks similar questions about Kant or Hegel quotes. Zoonoses (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible that North Korea torpedoed Deepwater Horizon?
Hi. There is an ongoing discussion here. Could the news reports be true, or is this some kind of prank? If this is possible, should these reports be included in the article, or is there some other explanation for this? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)02:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no "news reports". The websites this story is appearing on belong to "alternative news", survivalists, and other sundry nutters (The EU Times is a white supremacist and conspiracy theory website, by the way). Apart from anything else, the US government doesn't have the power to order a "news blackout" on anything (indeed, if it tried, that'd be a massive story in itself). And I'm failing to see how the best way to clean up an oil leak is to drop a nuclear bomb on it. The whole thing really is a load of rubbish from the best "make stuff up that appeals to your worldview" school of internet journalism. FiggyBee (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The US government has absolutely had successful "News Blackouts" see Kidnapping of David Rohde for a recent example (true, that was the slightly more competent New York Times doing most of the work, but still, proof of concept). Still, in this case, I think "unlikely" is an understatement. Buddy431 (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that this is pretty rubbish. The whole story is ridiculous on a number of levels. The idea that Obama needs/wants to drop a B83 on the oil slick is charmingly crazy. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Imperial Reform. During the late 1400's and early 1500's a series of reforms was undertaken to reorganize the HRE. These were undertaken in a series of Diets (Congresses or conferences) including one in Worms and one in Cologne, and another in Augsburg, likely even more. The most important effect of these conferences was the formalization of the Imperial Circle. You'll notice that the circles never included the non-German lands. Even prior to these reforms, the southern third of the HRE had was de facto independent from it. These reforms, and other political events at the time, basically made de jure what had already been going on in practice for years. Partly because of their exclusion from the Circles, and thus the real power in the HRE, the Italian territories and the Swiss Confederacy withdrew from the HRE. Also around this time, the Holy Roman Emperors stopped going to Rome to be crowned. After the early 1500s, all further emperors were only "Emperors-elect" as none actually went through the crowning process. The change in name was a recognition of the changing nature of the HRE, from a central-European state stretching from Italy to the North Sea, whose emperor was crowned by (and thus received official sanction from) the Italian pope, into a state that was an almost exclusively German kingdom. There were also some political concerns regarding non-German princes standing for election to the HRE; IIRC there was serious consideration given to Henry VIII of England possibly standing for such a position; Henry's Spanish cousin became Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor; he also had ties to the French royal family. The addition of the "Of the German Nation" may have been to make clear that the HRE was a strictly german state. Charles V specifically divided up his lands, giving his younger brother Ferdinand (pending election) the HRE, while giving the rest of his lands to his son Philip. Prior to becoming emperor, it should be noted that Ferdinand was alread Archduke of Austria and King of Bohemia, thus already "in" with the Germans, while Philip was not. --Jayron3203:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So your saying that Ferdinand already had Austria (german), while his son did not, so Ferdinand was German, or, ""in" with the (g)(G)ermans"?174.3.123.220 (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of. Its complicated, because European nobility and royalty was essential extra-national; that is outside of the normal concerns of citizenship and nationality. After all, the Hapsburg dynasty, of which Charles himself (and his son Philip) was a member, was essentially south German (today: Switzerland, see Habsburg Castle). However, Charles immediate parentage was a Spanish mother and a Burgundian father, Charles himself was King of Spain before he became Emperor, though his early life was spent in Ghent, Flanders today in Belgium, but then part of the lands ruled by the County of Burgundy. So just look at what one might consider Charles' nationality: He's Swiss-German/Flemish/Spanish/French/Burgundian yada yada yada. The same would hold true for his brother, Ferdinand, and his son, Philip, only even more complicated. Ferdinand was granted the HRE in large part because, as ruler of two of HRE states, Austria and Bohemia, he was far more familiar with Central European politics, and likewise the main players in central Europe were far more familiar with him. Philip was something of an unknown quantity; he had been raised, like his father, in the Low Countries; and had little experience working with the mess that was HRE politics. It was a rather pragmatic solution to Charles's succession. Given his massive personal empire, if he passed the entirety on to only one person, it would have likely upset the Balance of power in Europe.
By the late 1400's, the HRE was fast becomeing an inefficient state. All around it, other countries were being organized into strong, centralized nation-states (a new concept for the late middle ages), while the elective and surpa-national nature of the HRE made it somewhat of an anachronism. France was coming into its own, consolidating itself out of what had been basically a bunch of semi-independent duchies. England had just gotten over the Wars of the Roses, and was now a highly centralized state under the Tudors. Russia was formed out of a bunch of independent states and stopped paying tribute to the Mongols. Modern Sweden was on its way to becoming a major power, after the dissolution of the Kalmar Union. The HRE could not have survived in that environment, which is why the Imperial Reform became necessary. Like in the rest of Europe, the reforms represented the earliest attempts at a nascent "German nation", and to keep the Empire in control of the German states that made it up (hence the organization of the Imperial Circles). For an example of what happened to a country that didn't undergo such reforms, see Free election and the Partitions of Poland. --Jayron3205:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the last sentence. Poland was partitioned because the reforms there went too far – it was too democratic, too tolerant and too centralized. — Kpalion(talk)12:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. Not unless one wants to appear smarter than one is by making reference to an earlier supra-national state, even though such metaphor really doesn't hold up to deeper scrutiny. --Jayron3213:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to appear like anything other than what I am, and what we all are-namely Wikipedia editors. Don't try to ascribe possible motives for other people's personal opinions; of which we are all entitled to own, however they might run contrary to yours.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. I should also apologise for making a flippant comment, after you had gone to the trouble of explaining in accurate and concise detail, the intricacies of the Holy Roman Empire. I'm sorry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was't a completely stupid statement, Jeanne, but from an exclusively territorial point of view, the EU goes too far north and not far enough south to be the new Roman Empire. Now if it didn't accept the Pols, the Czecks, the Scandis and east Germans, and if France had retained Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Lebanon and Syria, if Italy had retained Lybia, England had retained Egypt, if we accepted Turkey, and finally if the scots declared independance from both Britain and the EU, we could talk :-)--Lgriot (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you confusing the Holy Roman Empire with the Roman Empire, Lgriot? As for the HRE/EU comparison, I'd say that one thing they have in common is that they both were/are sui generis entities that defy any classification. And that's about it for similarities. — Kpalion(talk)12:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I read far too fast Jeanne's statement, and missed the word "Holy" completely.... Just made a fool of myself. --Lgriot (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't make a fool of yourself, you just made a mistake; which we all do in our lives. We are human beings, after all. Anyroad, it's no big deal. Both the Roman and the Holy Roman Empiries occurred centuries ago, and the EU is a modern reality.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lame duck PM?
American here. Curious but ignorant. I understand that a new UK parliament will be elected next Thursday (or most of it, anyway). Hypothetically, let's suppose there's a hung parliament in which the Tories are the largest party. On Friday morning, what is everyone's status? Given the hungness of parliament, it would seem impossible to instantly christen anyone "prime minister elect". Instead, I suppose there must be negotiations between the parties. During this period, I would assume that Brown would remain PM out of pure inertia, but does he? When is the precise moment that one person stops being PM and someone else starts? 129.174.184.114 (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Hung parliament is rarely called in Westminster system of democracies. They are known as minority governments instead. The party with the most seats still wins, and its leader the Prime Minister-elect, simple. As to when does this person becomes the PM officially, that's when he/she is ceremonially appointed by the sovereign (the Queen) or governor general and his/her cabinet is sworn in. --Kvasir (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply not true. A hung parliament is a parliament in which no party has a majority - that is the name that is almost always used for that situation in a Westminster system (the term "balanced parliament" has been used by some small parties that want a hung parliament in the UK). That can result in a minority government, but it can also result in a coalition government (or a new election). Having the most seats doesn't make you PM. The current PM remains PM until they resign (or are forced out by a no-confidence vote, which won't happen for a couple of weeks at least). --Tango (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it. Normally the incumbent stays in office till the new PM comes on board. In the case where a PM dies in office, there would be a slice of PM-free time, until the palace was advised and, presumably, the deputy leader of the party was called to be appointed either acting PM or the next PM; but that might depend on whether they're likely to win a party room ballot for the next leader, and being the current deputy leader is no guarantee of that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Just on the general question of when one person stops being PM and someone else starts: In the case where the opposition clearly wins the election, the current PM advises the monarch to commission the Leader of the Opposition to form a government. She calls him to the palace, they "kiss hands", and he's now the PM. The former PM's commission is withdrawn. Same deal when the current PM loses the support of his/her own party; he advises the queen to commission whoever it is who now has majority support. The meetings between the queen and the people concerned are held in private, so the precise moment of transition is never recorded, at least not officially afaik, but the new PM might glance at his watch at the time and make a mental note. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if I'm hearing you right, the PM stays the PM until the monarch has handed the job over to the new one in a private session. So there is no time when there's no PM except maybe for a few seconds in the queen's office. Also, presumably both of them kiss the queen's hand rather than each other's hands, yes? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're one-on-one meetings with the Queen. First, the current PM meets her and tells her to call the next guy. He leaves. Then she calls the next guy, they meet and kiss hands, and he emerges PM. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're assuming they actually kiss hands, since it's not recorded, right? I've got this mental picture of King George telling Winston Churchill, "Let's don't, and say we did." I'm guessing the previous PM actually remains the PM in case the new one dies suddenly on the way into the office (after the queen hollers "Next!") ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The old PM remains PM after leaving the Queen, until the new guy meets her, and only then does he replace the old guy. If the new guy falls under a bus on the way to the palace, the incumbent PM would, I imagine, be asked to remain in office until the party concerned could sort itself out and elect a new leader. I have a fantastic mental picture of a party leader hopping on to a red double decker bus to go to Buck Palace to become the Prime Minister; but losing his footing while getting off, and getting run over.-- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)It should also be noted that the Government (that is, what us Americans call "the Administration"), is distinct from Parliament. Transitions from one PM to another do not necessarily occur at elections. In practice, the Government would need to have control of a majority of the seats in the House of Commons; if it did not it could not effectively govern since it couldn't pass any of its legislation. In the aforementioned February 1974 election, the Conservative Party retained the government, and Edward Heath the PM position, despite not even having a plurality of seats in Parliament. The Government couldn't do anything, hence Heath's resignation, and Wilson taking over as PM and calling new elections. Recently, Gordon Brown assumed the office after the retirement of Tony Blair, the transition occured without any election. In the UK, elections can be called at any time, but normally run on a 5 year cycle. If a new PM becomes necessary between elections, there's just a handing off of the position without any election at all. Again, this is my American perspective, so someone from the UK can feel free to correct or elaborate as needed. --Jayron3204:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pretty good to me (another non-Brit, but I know a thing or 2 about machinery of government procedures in a Westminster system, and how things are done in the "mother of parliaments"). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a Brit, just a couple of points. The reference to having "control of a majority of the seats" is a slight oversimplification - there isn't necessarily a formal coalition between parties, but there would need to be agreement that the other parties would support the legislative programme that is set out at the start of each parliamentary session in the Queen's Speech - delivered by HM, but written by the PM's party ("My Government will...") The PM would not necessarily stand down if they lost a subsequent vote, unless that vote had the status of a vote of confidence, in which case they would. In theory HM could then call on the leader of one of the other parties to try to form a government, but in practice there would be likely to be another election. And, in relation to elections, they can only be "called at any time" within an outside limit of 5 years. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The guidance from the Cabinet Secretary is that the incumbent can be invited to form a government is no clear alternative exists. Until such time as that invitation is made then the incumbent remains. What that means in the event of a No Overall Control outcome continuity is maintained, in theory.
In practice there will be some negotiation both openly and behind the scenes to establish either a coalition or a confidence and Support agreement delivering an overall majority. Once that is established the leader of that will be invited to form a government.
An important point not really addressed in all of the above is that the Prime Minister was for much of its history barely constitutionally recognised and still is to some extent merely the No. 1 minister in parliament who is deputised to act as the spokesperson and goes and tells the monarch what her government is doing and thinking. This has obviously changed a lot and the PM is far more like a president than he ever was but it is still not as precise a role as the US president for instance. A close analogy to the current PM being run over by a No. 9 bus is the assassination of Spencer Perceval after which there was not a clear designated successor and it took almost a month without a PM before one was appointed. There is no real requirement for a continuity of PMs, really there just has to be one when the monarch needs to consult with parliament. meltBanana17:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The situation was quite different in 1812 than today, however. The monarch in 1812 still had actual executive power (rather than symbolic power) so the apparatus of state of the United Kingdom could still operate in the absence of a PM. Since the PM has gradually come to, more and more, assume a more "Executive" role in the UK government as the Monarch's powers have gradually reduced, a month long vacancy to the office may not be tolerable, unless another official in the government would take on the role of the office without its official sanction (a sort of Acting PM). --Jayron3218:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue is that it's not always clear who the successor is, when the incumbent dies or resigns. Look what happened in 1963 when Harold Macmillan resigned suddenly. The Conservative Party at that time did not feel it necessary to descend to the tawdry practice of actually electing a leader. Rather, one was expected to simply "emerge", statesmanlike. (A bit like Wikipedia's protocol of gauging how a consensus has been arrived at, without ever going to a vote.) Macmillan was gone, and his successor was not clear. The Queen could not be seen to be engaging in politics, but she needed a Prime Minister, and she needed to know whom to commission, but the party could not yet tell her. After considerable but hurried discussion, including with Macmillan himself, the Queen invited the Foreign Secretary, the Earl of Home to become PM. This was a problem. It was not an absolute constitutional requirement, but a practical requirement, that the PM be a member of the House of Commons. Home was a member of the House of Lords. He took advantage of the newly instituted procedure of disclaiming his peerage to be able to sit in the Commons (as Sir Alec Douglas-Home). That required him to win a seat, and fortunately there was a Scottish by-election in the offing, which he stood for and won. Between disclaiming the peerage and winning the by-election, he remained PM but without being a member of either house. Somewhat analagous to the case of John Gorton in Australia in 1967-68. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Lame duck PM" - I'm doubtful that newspaper reporters do attitude surveys to find out what the public is thinking. Rather, they just cook up a (more or less credible) dramatic story that sells newspapers and glues eyes to tvs. So the the public opinion story that they spout is just their own invention, put together by the luck of the draw. 89.242.97.110 (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They do, but the surveys are frequently deliberately skewed to give them the result they want to report. For example, I'm on the Yougov panel, and there was a hilarious poll shortly after the first leaders' debate asking how much you agreed with "these criticisms of Nick Clegg", and how much "these problems caused by a hung parliament" worried you. There were no options to say "I think these are a load of bunk" or "actually, I'd quite like this to happen" or "this is extremely dodgy reasoning". It's not about the luck of the draw, it's about the media creating the story they want to report, trying to control the political system. For example, Murdoch. 86.178.225.111 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Source of quotation: "Dance like no one's watching"
Over the last few months, I keep running into a quotation on people's Facebooks, or email signatures: "Dance like no one's watching, Love like you've never been hurt, Sing like no one's listening, Live like it's Heaven on earth". And I keep seeing it attributed to Mark Twain, of all people. That doesn't sound remotely like Twain to me, but there's stuff all over the Internet that says it's him. My primary question (which I hope is answerable) is who actually originated those lines (if it's Twain, I'd like to know when/where he said/wrote it). My secondary question (which I figure isn't answerable) is, assuming it's not a Twain line, where did the notion that it was Mark Twain get started...but I know that's a longshot. Anyone who can help source this quotation, though, will really help me out, psychologically. :-) Thanks! 71.197.145.28 (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's likely unfindable. I first heard it attributed to Satchel Paige of all people; I still doubt it was him. This is a case where the noise level swamps the information level. The internet is full of false attributions, and the false attributions are often more believable than the real ones. Its likely the quote is to some marginally well known person, but Mark Twain, Will Rogers, Ben Franklin, Oscar Wilde, or Winston Churchill are all far more interesting, so the quote gets attached to THEM, and then the falsehood gets spread around the internet. Then it becomes impossible to use Google to find the truth, since the more interesting falsehood becomes so pervasive, it overwhelms the search. What I have found in these cases is look for whoever the quote is assigned to, and then eliminate ANY source that assigns it to one of the people I listed above. Chances are, if one source gives the quote to some obscure person rather than the people above, THAT is the real source of it. --Jayron3204:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The self-expressive value attached to dance dates the idea post 1975; the vulgarism "dance like" for "dance as if..." confirms the late date.--Wetman (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to this very unreliable source, it's William Purkey (the poster claims to have e-mailed him himself, and posted the reply). Buddy431 (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This link[12] is similar to the one Wetman posted except it has additional info indicating that Purkey excerpted it from a song by Susanna Clark and and Richard Leigh. That catch there is that the article about the song, "Come From the Heart", refers back to Purkey and others. And Purkey's answer on the blogs doesn't come right out and claim that he wrote it. So it may be one of those things that's hard to pin down. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone for their help -- I guess it's hard to have a final answer, but at least this is better than thinking Mark Twain wrote such a maudlin piece of sentiment. :-) 71.197.145.28 (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What if the "afterlife" actually occurs backward in time, so that a person after death is reincarnated as another individual who was born before the original person? ~AH1(TCU)18:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a novel theory. Of course, it's possible when one considers that time is relative. I also have a theory that the afterlife is really just a fantasy we create and people as we choose. We die, go to a different dimension, yet our soul which is just a mass of transformed energy, creates our own personal heaven in any time period we want. A bit like solipsism.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a novel theory, that novel possibly being Slaughterhouse-Five. Then there was a B.C. strip where Peter tells Curls he believes in reincarnation. Curls asks him to explain. Peter tells Curls that when you die, you come back as a lesser being. Curls remarks, "Looks like this is your last trip!" ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish eschatology is a very murky and ill-defined matter, but one very general principle is that every dead Jewish person will be bodily or spiritually resurrected when the Messiah turns up. It is for this reason that traditional Judaism buries its members with their feet facing towards Jerusalem (because the amount of time it would take them to turn 180-degrees after an eternity of waiting would cause real problems...) and frowns on cremation and organ donation, since it impairs the body. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 15:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cult of Padre Pio
Des anyone know why Pio of Pietrelcina is so venerated, especially in southern Italy where I live? Here people pray directly to him, have his photo on their walls and in their cars, his statue is everywhere, people go on pilgrimages to see his grave at San Giovanni Rotondo-which has become a shrine. In fact, you see more images of him than Jesus! Would this not constitute idolatry? He is said to perform many miracles-in life and in death.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but in southern Italy, the worship of Pio has surpassed that of Jesus! He was allegedly visited by demons, had the stigmata, and continues to perform miracles. I believe the last Pope might have had something to do with the high level of adoration he receives.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not unconnected with the fact that as far back as 1947 (!), Padre Pio told the then Father Karol Wojtyła that he would one day "ascend to the highest post in the Church". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah....I wasn't aware of that fact! Well, that partially explains the cult following Padre Pio (he is still called Padre rather than San) has here. Also, southern Italians are generally by nature, superstitious. Religion is Sicily is a mix of folklore, tradition and faith.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that Padre Pio surpassed Jesus. I think it's just a matter of intercession. In Italy, expecially in Southern Italy, is a common practice to devote a community (in the simplest case a city) to a particular patron saint or a kind of Madonna. Naples is very strongly associated to San Gennaro, so local people tipically pray him to intercede to God for them. It's the same for Bari (San Nicola), Palermo (Santa Rosalia) and so on. This is more evident in Southern Italy probably because of their more showy way of convey their religiosity. Some other saints have a more national popularity, like San Francesco. Padre Pio is however a particular case. He's very popular in all Italy, not just in Southern Italy, but more or less everywhere. Pictures of him are found in a lot of houses or public places. He's popular both among traditional religious people and less-traditional ones (modern teenagers). I've seen even tattoos of him! I don't know the real reason for this, but it could derive from his charismatic personality, his miraculous life, his strong commitment with poor/simple/common people, media coverage... --151.51.60.165 (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You explain it well. Yes, southern Italians enjoy flamboyant pageantry which is evidenced in their processions. Look at Saint Agatha in Catania as another example to include with the ones you have mentioned. Yet, Pio being a Franciscan was very austere in his mien and attire, not in the least showy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saint Padre Pio, had so many miracles attributed to him that, only a few years ago, there was no lack of evidence in his case for canonisation. His bi-location occurances were immence. His saintliness is reminisant of Saint Anthony of Padua. There is no jealously in Jesus; to honour a Saint in His Name is to Honour Him. If you view this from outside it does look strange, but if you were ever at the process of investigation in the process of Canonisation and the investigation of miracles, you would think again. MacOfJesus (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Padre Pio was always a controversial figure in the Church. My problem with his miracles is this: If he was/is so powerful, why can he only cure afflicted people and not prevent natural disasters which are so prevalent in Italy such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, floods? He's also strangely absent on Italian highways over any given weekend which sees a lot of fatalities, especially involving teenagers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware anyone's ever claimed he had any personal power, Jeanne. Whatever he did or was said to have done, is presumably attributed to the intercession of the divine, not to his own personal capacity to produce miracles. He no more chose to be the vessel through which such things occurred, than I chose to be born in the Land of Oz. If I may say so, your point is rather redolent of the centurions taunting Jesus at the cross ("He saved others, let him now save himself"), and this isn't the place for such soapboxing. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not soapboxing Jack, so please indulge me and assume a little bit of good faith on my part. I was merely saying that miracles should be wrought when they are needed and not just manifested in the guise of the stigmata, tears of blood, moving statues, etc.. I have said the same things to Catholic priests and they were not offended; rather it gave them the opportunity to flaunt their impressive knowledge of theology.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't offended (neither am I a Catholic). But an argument such as "miracles should be wrought when they are needed and not just manifested in the guise of the stigmata", etc, is rolled gold soapboxing. It has nothing to do with the spread of knowledge via the asking and answering of questions, but everything to do with the expression of your own personal views about when miracles are and are not appropriate. That's something you might perhaps take up with God. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be important to understand the Gospels here. The Gospels referred to the miracles as the "signs". When Jesus cured the 10 lepers only those were, who asked, were cured. (Lk 17, 11+).
Also, this is explained well in Lk 4, 16-30. Particularly verse 25-30, where Jesus explains it far better than any of us can, and got an immediate reaction, talk about soapboxing in; vs:28-30!
When Father Pader Pio came to the sick, in bi-location, it was Jesus who willed the miracle, and brought them about.
Then again it is true for Saint Catherine of Sienna, who said: "For those who do not believe no explination is possible, for those who do none is necessary!"
Another UK politics question. I've read that the most stubborn opponents of electoral reform are the Conservatives. If this is true, why? It's often been pointed out during the run-up to the election that Labour benefit greatly from the present electoral system, such that even if they were to come in third in the popular vote, they could still remain the largest party in parliament. It seems like Labour are the real beneficiaries of the status quo, so why are the Tories the ones who are most opposed to changing it? 129.174.184.114 (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the Tories fear that proportional representation will lead to a Labour/LibDem-coalition taking over the country indefinetely. Secondly, are all politicians necessarily acting out of self-interest all the time? Isn't it at least conceivable that a political party stands for something they believe in even though it is detrimental to them as a party? Gabbe (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the official Conservative rationale is that "the current system results in stable governments and keeps out extremists".[13]Gabbe (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Tories nor Labour are particularly supportive of PR, because under the present system they've swapped power at regular intervals for about 90 years. PR makes it less likely that will happen.
Labour have recently suggested that they'd implement it, but only after it became pretty clear that they're unlikely to win the election outright.
The arguments are less about who is in charge, but how much power they have whilst there. PR is more likely to create smaller majorities, hence less opportunity to force through initiatives. It should lead to more challenge and scrutiny in the house.
The flip side of which is that it leads to less punishment for politicians for being rubbish (since all parties are always to some extent in power), and greater job security for them. 86.21.204.137 (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest five years is pretty fair job security already. But it does depend on the system in use, some PR mechanisms do tend to disassociate the individual from the elector, some don't. The former would, as you say, remove the scrutiny from the individual, the latter wouldn't.
As observed below though, successful PR needs more than just changes to the voting system. Boundary reviews and reform of the upper house would be important as well.
Of course increasing voter turnout would make a difference, since one of the main criticisms of the FPTP system is that in conjunction with voter apathy any governing party doesn't have a real mandate. There was talk this morning of the Tories having a majority on 37% of the vote, so about 20% of the electorate.
Some guy on TV made an interesting point, for a change, that PR means voting for the party rather than the individual MP, with the party rather than the electorate choosing who the MP is. Another concern is that nutter fringe parties like the BNP can get a toehold and a big propaganda platform. 92.29.142.124 (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Israel apparently, fringe parties get to dictate government policy in return for support as part of a coalition. "Because forming a coalition involves smaller parties, it often means that groups at the periphery of Israeli politics acquire disproportionate influence.[14]" Alansplodge (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The problem of how to bring about proportional representation without breaking the link to the constituency, and particularly without creating an entirely party-led political system, is non-trivial. Those people who suggest it is a simple, black-and-white issue show their lack of understanding of the current system. Personally, I think it will have to be accompanied by simultaneous reform of the House of Lords, to have any chance of incorporating both ideals. The filtering out of extremes is also not to be sniffed at, although people disagree on how ethical that is. You often have proponents of PR arguing that we should bring it in so that the Greens get representation, neglecting to mention that any system that gives the Greens representation has to give the BNP at least as much: in my experience, the same audiences who believe the system should represent the Greens' votes tend to believe the BNP should be banned. 86.178.225.111 (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
92.29.142.124 -- Classic proportional representation has been unable to make any headway in the United States because a very large number of voters here would consider voting for a fixed party list instead of an individual candidate to be bizarrely outlandish and completely unacceptable. There are some electoral experiments here, but with things like preference voting, and mainly confined to city councils etc. AnonMoos (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "Labour benefit greatly from the present electoral system" (and that it disadvantages the Conservatives) that's true, depending on how you define "the present electoral system". The Conservative's problem is not due to the vote-counting system, but due to the boundaries of constituencies. Currently Conservative-voting constituencies tend to contain more electors than do Labour-voting ones. This is due to the ongoing movement of the population out of urban centres into suburbs and dormitory villages, and the Boundary Commission lagging in redrawing the boundaries to match. (ref). So what's in the Conservatives' interest is an acceleration of the redrawing of the boundaries, not a change in the voting system. A first-past-the-post voting system comparatively favours large parties, and particularly those like the Labour Party and the Conservatives in England, where their votes are sufficiently geographically contained that they win constituencies outright (and disfavours parties like the Liberals, who garner a substantial vote but one that is distributed over many constituencies). Consider for example the United Kingdom general election, 1979: the Conservatives gained 53.4% of MPs with 43.9% of votes; if a full PR scheme had pertained then, they'd have to go into coalition with the Liberals (or at least deal with them) as a Lib/Lab pact would have fielded more MPs. The boot is on the other foot where the Conservatives don't enjoy a large, geographically-coherent vote. In the 2007 Scottish Parliament election the Scottish Conservatives won 16.6% of the constituency vote, 13.9% of the region vote, and have 13% of the MSPs; I don't know their vote % in the United Kingdom general election, 2005 (I think it's about the same) but they only gained 1 seat, 3% of Scottish MPs. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk13:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BNP but not Greens on TV in UK
Why have the BNP suddenly been on TV a lot and are even giving Party Election Broadcasts? Why arent other parties like the Greens being given an equal voice? 92.29.142.124 (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rough calculus of representation on TV is that gaining elected representatives gains a party more access to TV. The election of two BNP MEPs in the recent European election (which brings their representation there to the same as the Green Party) explains their increased prominence. The Green Pary's Election Broadcast was shown on all five terrestrial channels last Tuesday(ref). I don't know whether it's fair to say that the BNP is given a greater voice than the BNP Greens, and such a claim would need a proper study of broadcasts. By way of example, list of Question Time episodes shows Caroline Lucas has appeared three times on the programme, Nick Griffin once. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk12:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(after ec) :It has something to do with the number of candidates standing. This site [www.broadcastersliaisongroup.org.uk/docs/Criteria_May_2005_GE.doc] claims that "Broadcasts are allocated to the main parties and to parties standing in at least one sixth of seats in each nation. Parties standing in one sixth of the seats in at least one nation will be entitled to a GB-wide (or UK wide) broadcast instead of national broadcasts if they are standing a sixth (104) of the total available seats in England, Scotland and Wales." If you read further down you will find the numbers and how they were allocated for the 2005 election. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here in the UK I would like to get someone who could for a house a) decide what renovation work was needed, and then b) check that the builder had done all the work required and to a good standard. What would be the job title(s) of that, so that I can search and find someone locally? Thanks 78.151.115.180 (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the US that would be a "contractor", but I don't know if that term is used in the UK. You asked about "renovations". Unlike "repairs", which are necessary, to me renovations means updates to add to the house or make it more stylish. As such, that's more a matter of opinion than a factual assessment, so the homeowner really should make the final decisions. StuRat (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in Canada, but I'd expect the terminology here to be the same as the US. The contractor is the person who actually does the work. If you want someone to assess what work is needed or how well it was done, that'd be a home inspector. They are usually used when a house is being sold, to call attention to any problems that are not obvious to the buyer, but you could hire one any time you wanted. --Anonymous, 05:09 UTC, May 2, 2010.
I'm thinking of the case where the contractor hires subcontractors for various pieces, like electrical work, plumbing, and carpentry, and checks on each. StuRat (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant professional institute in this case, who can offer someone to give independent advice, would be the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, who run a service here which should be able to help. Or, more simply, you just ensure that anyone you find locally is an RICS member. There are also similar organisations responsible for advice on architectural services (RIBA) - here - and planning services (RTPI) - here - should you need them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OR here: I specifically asked an architect to come and look at the various things I was considering having done to my house (in the UK). At the end he said "So what do you want me to do? I could draw you some plans if you wanted." I wanted what the OP wanted, and had wrongly supposed that this would be an architect. I haven't found the right thing yet. --ColinFine (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Years ago I employed an architectural technician for the same purpose, although that project didnt go through. I read on the internet in the last day or so that two professional bodies only allow them to work with architects, but there may be independent ones, as I think I went to see one a couple of years ago. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is to get someone independant of the builder or contractor, to avoid being ripped off and get good quality work done. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the point of a general contractor. They oversee the sub-contractors that are usually sub-contracted out to perform the required tasks. Its the responsibility of the homeowner to find a trustworthy one. Livewireo (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
During the interval when John F. Kennedy was killed until the moment Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in as president on board Air Force One, who had control of the government, or was the nation like a ship without its captain? I was wondering who had command of the USA's enormous nuclear arsenal in the interim.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but did Johnson have full executive powers before his swearing-in? There was a great urgency to get him sworn in as Air Force One was flying back to Washington with Kennedy's casket on board. If he had the powers of president, surely it could have waited until he had flown back to Washington. I do know that both the USA and the Soviet Union went on maximum nuclear alert following the formal pronouncement of JFK's death.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the urgency was on Johnson's part. The swearing in, along with the iconic photograph thereof, with Jackie Kennedy present, was at Johnson's own request to give the appearance of continuity of government. The reality that he had full executive power the instant the bullet hit the back of Kennedy's head was one thing, he and all of the major players in government may have fully understood that. However that does not mean that the general perception that no one was actually in authority did not exist. That the general perception may have been false isn't relevent. It still existed, and the hasty swearing-in ceremony was specifically orchestrated to eliminate it. The entire ceremony and the events surrounding it are described at First inauguration of Lyndon B. Johnson. --Jayron3218:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oath of office of the President of the United States covers the legal ground here, to some extent. Beyond that, you'd look to jurisprudence to determine what "full" means and when and to whom it applies. There is negligible applicable jurisprudence, so the legal specifics fall into the "no-one knows for sure" category. The double-swearing-in of President Obama confirms the belt-and-braces approach taken in this regard; they did the second oath not because they thought it was necessary, but because they couldn't be 100% sure it wasn't. What happens in practice in times like this is down to patriots acting in good faith and let the courts decide later. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk18:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the minute the fatal shot entered Kennedy's skull, Johnson henceforth became The Main Man. Like You pointed out, Jayron, the American public wouldn't necassarily have been aware of this, which is why the schools all let out early that day, etc. Also, there was the general belief that a coup d'etait had occurred. Wouldn't you say the urgency on the part of LBJ was a bit tacky, especially as Jackie's suit was covered with the blood and brain matter of her husband. Oh well, finesse was never Lyndon's strong point.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One article I read said that Jackie said at the time "Photograph me as I am at the swearing in, so they can see what they've done." I see no basis for your criticism of Johnson on this point. At that instant people in the U.S. wanted to be sure someone was ion charge of the Executive Branch and that there was a Commander in Chief of the military. Nothing whatsoever would have been gained by waiting an hour, a day, or a week for the swearing in. Edison (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it is very important, in a time of national emergency, to not only maintain order, but to maintain the appearance of maintaining order. These are not identical concepts, and tacky as it may have been, it was likely an necessary step in keeping order after the chaotic events of November 22. --Jayron3218:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realised that just after the assassination, Secret Service agent Youngblood actually sat on Johnson! Also seeing as the plane was still in Love Field Airport when he was sworn-in, wouldn't that make Johnson the only US president ever sworn-in on Texas soil? Strange, seeing as he was a native Texan.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you weren't alive and aware of the news in 1963, it's kind of hard to explain what it was like. It was a lot like 9/11/01 in that there was a lot of uncertainty about what was going to happen next - or maybe worse, as there hadn't been an assassination of the Prez since 1901. As noted by others here, the swearing-in of LBJ was done to make the statement that the USA was still in business and operating. The high-alert was because, frankly, a lot of the citizenry immediately assumed that either Cuba or the USSR (or both) were behind the assassination. Regarding LBJ being the only Prez sworn in in Texas, probably so. When Presidents have died, usually a local judge swears in the Prez wherever he happens to be, and as soon as practical. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For another example, Calvin Coolidge was sworn in in his father's Vermont living room, following the death of President Harding. Pretty sure Coolidge is the only president sworn in in Vermont as well. --Jayron3201:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I was alive when JFK was killed. I was 5 years old, but I can remember the news bulletin interrupting my favourite programme with the news from Dallas saying Kennedy had "been shot", yet a local newsman opined that it "really meant he was dead". When I told my mother, she went into a panic. Everybody did assume that Castro was behind it. I also remember seeing Ruby shoot Oswald in the stomach on live tv. My family always thought there was a conspiracy behind it. Those days when the nation stood still, I can see vividly in my mind. I was just unsure about the interval between the shooting and the swearing-in of LBJ. My brother was sent home from school after the assassination and was told to "go straight home"!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The JFK killing spawned dozens of intriguing and contradictory conspiracy theories. Even at the time, I was certain that Oswald was at least a part of it, and I've become convinced over time that Oswald very well could have done it alone. One interesting thing is that LBJ told Walter Cronkite, some time after leaving the White House, that he had never fully rid himself of the suspicion that there was foreign influence in the assassination. He wouldn't name any names, of course. It seemed so tragic, yet LBJ was able to invoke the memory of JFK to get great civil rights legislation passed. That would be his legacy if it weren't for that little fly in the ointment called Vietnam. Anyway, as with 9/11, and the attempt on Ronald Reagan in 1981, there were swift moves to present the appearance of the government running smoothly in spite of the fear and panic. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All things considered, the transistion of power to LBJ went very smoothly. He also managed to win the 1964 election. Yes, he did pass great civil rights legislation; however, at the same time, an extremely high proportion of black Americans were dying in Vietnam. That factor has to be taken into consideration when we evaluate his tenure in office.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why in the past decades has there been violence against missionaries working in Turkey?
I've tried to locate reliable source materials to help me better understand Turkey's distrust of missionaries and was hoping you could recomend some resources. I realize the country is proudly nationalistic and protective of their culture and way of life, also aware of the historical connection between missionarly work and colonialism, but I have not be able to figure out why recently there has been such a assault against missionaries.
That actually has nothing to do with it. Turkey is an enforced secular country; the government goes through great pains to stop lots of public displays of any religious nature, muslim included. Secularism in Turkey discusses this, especially the section Constitutional principles which explains some of the rationale for the hardline stance against public religion, and Impact on society which has the relevent statement "The Turkish Constitution recognizes freedom of religion for individuals whereas the religious communities are placed under the protection of state, but the constitution explicitly states that they cannot become involved in the political process." They take this very seriously in Turkey; the freedom of religion is an intensely individual right in Turkey; Turkish women (to some controversy) are generally forbidden from wearing religious headgear, for example. Turkey is an interesting case, on the one hand its society is very religious; only 3% profess to having "no religion at all"; on the other hand, the state is very deliberate about maintaining Turkey as a "secular" society. Prosyltism of any sort is likely met with problems not because Turkey is muslim, but because of the sort of enforced secularism that exists there. --Jayron3218:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm sure the violence against missionaries comes from state forces seeking to preserve the secular nature of an ultra-religious country. It all makes a lot of sense. Rimush (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I am not sure you fully understand the nature of Turkish society here, and your flippant rejection of the above explanation isn't really necessary. Whether you wish to accept it or not, it is possible for a nation to be majority muslim and still respect freedom of religion. There may well be individual conflicts between christians and muslims in Turkey, but the fact remains that Turkey's stance on secularism vs. religion cannot be ignored here. It is also a problem for muslims in Turkey, for example the Headscarf controversy in Turkey was specifically a muslim-only issue... --Jayron3218:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can flippantly reject anything I want, especially because I don't base my knowledge of Turkish society on official crap and Wikipedia articles based on official crap. Rimush (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rimush, you can rationalize your attitude any way you like, but basically you're arguing out of an Islamophobic perspective: i.e. one that equates all of Islam with radical, violent, fundamentalist Muslims. You could just as easily claim that all Christians hate abortion doctors (because a few radical, violent, fundamentalist Christians shoot abortion doctors), and that perspective would be just as prejudicial. You could spend a year in Istanbul as a Christian missionary without running across anyone who disrespects you because you're Christian, even though 99% of the people in Istanbul are Muslim. You seem to get your 'knowledge' of Turkish society by extrapolating from FOX news, and that is not a particularly credible perspective. --Ludwigs220:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I don't live in the US (anymore), I don't watch FOX news. I'm not an islamophobe, I just know from experience how prejudiced majority religions can be. Sorry if I've acted like a jerk, I'm a bit irritable right now. Rimush (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Turkey has (historically) had a deep divide between cosmopolitan areas (Istanbul, Ankara, and etc), which are largely westernized and have the same kind of semi-secular approach to religion that most Christians have (i.e. they are Muslims by birth and culture, attend services weekly, but live largely secular lives), and rural regions which are much more deeply Muslim. Driving from western to eastern Turkey would give you the same kind of culture-shock experience as driving from New York City to a small town in Missouri of Louisiana, and an Istanbul Turk would be just about as likely to get his a$$ whupped in eastern turkey as a Manhattan intellectual would in Mobile Alabama. Further, over the last 15 or 20 years there has been a movement in Turkey towards the creation of an Islamic political presence. Politics in Turkey is secular as a matter of law, similar to the separation of church and state in the US, and the rise of Islamic-leaning political parties has created a lot of political and social tension. Christian missionaries in such a situation would be tempting targets - clearly representing the corrupting European cultural influences, reminding everyone of centuries of warfare and oppression, and lacking the kind of personal sympathy a native Turk or Muslim would receive. Imagine an ex-patriot South African holding a public talk about the virtues of Apartheid in Watts or Harlem. Even the people who didn't want to kill him outright would shake their heads and figure he deserved whatever he got. --Ludwigs218:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To focus on the element of missionary in this land...Saint Paul and Saint Barnabas were the first. Saint Paul was stoned, flogged a few times, and left for dead! This was in his first missionary journey in Asia Minor, now Turkey. However there is a Christian presence in the land and not a few shrines and holy Christian places.
Are court-ordered psychological evaluations privileged?
An odd question that occurred to me: When a court (in the US and - I believe - the UK systems) orders that a defendant undergo a psychological evaluation to determine if they are competent to stand trial, is the conversation between the psychologist/psychiatrist and the defendant privileged? Normally an analyst (or any doctor) cannot reveal the contents of interactions with patients except in extreme and well-defined cases (immediate and credible threats of harm to self or others, usually), but I don't know if that applies to a court-ordered diagnostic session. For instance, if a defendant were to confess to the crime during a court-ordered competency hearing, could the analyst (willingly or by insistence of the court) testify to the confession for the prosecution?
This is not a legal question - I'm not an analyst (or a criminal ). I'm just curious if anyone knows any relevant case law. --Ludwigs218:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know (which only covers the UK!) courts don't order pscychological evaluations. If a defendant is not fit to stand trial, his lawyer will summon psychiatrists to so testify (it's in his interests for their findings to be made public), and the Prosecution may summon counter-experts.
I don't know UK law very well at all. in the US it probably varies state by state, but I know that the court can order an evaluation. I'm not sure of the details, though, and either way I don't know if it answers the question. I guess it boils down to this: when an analyst is only asked to determine the defendant's competence (whomever asked him to do so), does privilege apply? I imagine the legal question would be something like "does the defendant have the same strong expectation of privacy in a competency review that s/he does in a normal therapeutic environment?" --Ludwigs219:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I can only speak for the UK, and in response to, "When an analyst is only asked to determine the defendant's competence (whomever asked him to do so), does privilege apply?" I would guess the answer to be yes, with the provisio that if they were commissioned by the defendant themselves, the defendant would waive privilege because he needs the evidence to be used in court. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 19:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After Googling on this for awhile, it seems to be that in the US, court-ordered mental evaluations are generally not considered privileged. To consider them such would obviously make it impossible to order them. The point of the therapist-patient privilege, in any case, is so that in therapy sessions the patient can reveal intimate and embarrassing information for the purpose of their own therapy. The point of the court-ordered mental evaluation is not therapeutic. A patient being evaluated for competency is probably told up front that it is probably not going to be confidential. One could imagine that specific details might be confidential (though I find this unlikely), whereas the ultimate diagnosis ("the person is competent/incompetent to stand trial") would not be, though my Googling around US law discussions about this doesn't seem to draw any such line (probably because it is going to be somewhat arbitrary and would make it pretty hard to parse out the limits of cross-examination). But this is not legal advice; I get the feeling there is a very detailed, state-by-state amount of case law associated with this particular question, and it is thorny. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hunh. well, having thought it through a bit more, it occurs to me it might be a moot point. Competence is not exculpatory - no one will go for it unless there is already overwhelming evidence of guilt. It just shifts sentencing from a penal confinement model to a medical confinement model. Nothing a defendant could say in such circumstances would serve to convict him more, so the legal issue may not have ever arisen. thanks for the responses though; very interesting. --Ludwigs220:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Treatment or non-treatment is the deciding general rule in the United States. Fifty states may have varying rules. Details in cases are all impt. Rarely do the same facts present themselves in later cases. 75Janice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 23:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Modern missionary practices and criticisms
I've been able to locate a wealth of reliable materials about the connection between missionary work and colonization as well as abuse scandals in the 19th and 20th century but have had difficulties locating materials covering contemporary approaches to Christian misionary work. I'm looking for materials which focus on contemporary motives, practices, criticism and support of missionary practices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.141.110 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently some extremely large protests going on in Greece against the planned austerity program that is being required by the IMF and other Eurozone countries. Do the trade unions, etc., that are encouraging the protests have an alternative plan? Or do they not believe the situation is as severe as the government says? Or what? --Tango (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's just politics. They know that fiscal deficits have to decrease. But austerity hurts poorer people worse and leftist groups (unions and parties) are trying to rally up support among the working and lower-middle classes by pointing out that they (ie the workers) are going to pay for the current administration's mistakes. If anything, they may achieve less onerous requirements from the IMF and Germany. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Hinduism#Beliefs for a discussion about core values of Hinduism. To answer directly, from my understanding as a non-Hindu, is that there is nothing in Hinduism that is directly against all warfare, for example one of the themes of the Bhagavad Gita, an important Hindu epic, is set in the background of a war, and the main character is Arjuna, a general, who ponders the whether it is better to act in war (and thus, perhaps die and kill a great many people) or to not act, but then he subverts his duty, because as a soldier, his duty is to fight. In this way, it kinda mirrors Hamlets "To be or not to be" speech in some ways. The Gita is a dense text, with LOTS of themes, but one of them ends up being that a core value should be to both discover one's purpose in life, and then to act positively towards that purpose. Since Arjuna is a soldier by purpose, it is his duty to act purposefully (see Karma Yoga), and to lead his troops into battle. Anyhoo, I am getting a bit off course, but from the Gita, it seems clear that core Hindu beliefs do not preclude warfare, nor to they mandate peace all the time. --Jayron3221:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is your second rather broad question about various religions. It would probably be best for you to read the article about the religion that you're wondering about and then come back here with more specific questions. That way, we don't just reiterate what the article already has to say about a particular topic. We're more than happy to help but would appreciate a little help from you by you reading the applicable articles. Dismas|(talk)21:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it true that Protestant church leaders were in support of Involuntary sterilization and other negative eugenic practices in the United States? I've heard this claim but can't find anything substantial in support or against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.66.195 (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some religious groups embraced eugenics, many opposed it. Eugenics was broadly popular amongst what we could consider to be both conservatives and liberals in its heyday. It doesn't easily fall along simple ideological or religious lines. Catholics were officially opposed to sterilization of any kind and the only really significant religious opposition that I know of. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article on involunatary sterilization has a fairly brief section on the united states which doesn't really touch upon the full breadth of the act. Especially considering that it covers a period from 1917-1981 which resulted in over 65,000 people being sterilized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.66.195 (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it is just a very brief summary, but there are many manuscripts about the history of American eugenics that one can find either through your local library or Amazon. I think the book that would probably help you out the most is Christine Rosen, Preaching eugenics: Religious leaders and the American eugenics movement (Oxford University Press, 2004). The abstract states that:
Preaching Eugenics tells how Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish leaders confronted and, in many cases, enthusiastically embraced eugenics—a movement that embodied progressive attitudes about modern science at the time. Christine Rosen argues that religious leaders pursued eugenics precisely when they moved away from traditional religious tenets. The liberals and modernists—those who challenged their churches to embrace modernity—became the eugenics movement's most enthusiastic supporters. Their participation played an important part in the success of the American eugenics movement.
The possibility of EU to collapase now seem realistic by many in Europe and outside. Even so, it still seem to be very far from happning. My question is, however, what will happen with European countries debts if the EU countries, or part of them, will return to use their original coins? What could be the political and social implications for Eastern European countries like Poland and Hungary, which are now part of the EU? --Gilisa (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, the EU and the Euro are different things. Not all EU countries have the Euro, and some non-EU countries use the Euro (some with official agreements, some without). There is little to no chance for the Euro to be dropped. But if countries leave the Eurozone, their debt will be pegged to certain currencies (most likely Euro, but possibly Dollars or even other currencies), and will have to be served in that currency or the equivalent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The possibility of an UE collapse is extremely far-fetched and it is mostly used by the media to sell their newspaper/gain the attention of the viewer to sell some TV commercials. Flamarande (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just wondering what will happen if this radical scnario come true. What will happen with the $ ? Will it rise? Or maybethe opposite? What role will China play? What will happen with countries which export to the EU under the EU trade agreements? --Gilisa (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm truely surprised by what you are telling now. Anyway, many times the Ref Desk did deal with such issues.--Gilisa (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The EU isn't going to collapse. The Eurozone isn't even going to collapse. Greece is a fairly small part of the Eurozone - as long as France and Germany are ok (which they are), the Eurozone, as a whole, should be fine. Whether Greece can stay in it or not is still to be decided (it seems likely that they will). --Tango (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the following answers your question, but if a country enters into an agreement to make payments in euros and subsequently changes its home currency, it must still honour the terms of the agreement it entered into. Does that help? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On devaluing the Greek currency
I have a related question that I've been wondering about, so I'll ask it here. It has been said (by many people) that one way for Greece to get out of its current problems would be the leave the Eurozone (which would probably mean leaving the EU too) and then devalue its new currency. How would that work? If people knew the new currency was going to be devalued, why would they convert their money to it? They could just transfer all their savings to a bank in another Eurozone country that was keeping the Euro. The currency would be nominally devalued, but it wouldn't actually achieve anything because nobody would be holding the new currency at the time. --Tango (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But in order to buy anything in now-non-Euro-using Greece, where they live, they would have to keep converting those Euros back into the new currency which would be the only legal tender there. The additional inconvenience and costs of all those extra bank transactions would likely outweigh any one-time cost of converting to it in one go at the outset. In theory, devaluation isn't supposed to have much effect on internal prices, hence Harold Wilson's famous 1967 assurance that "the pound in your pocket" had not been devalued (yes, I know that's a slightly inaccurate paraphrase of what he actually said): in practice, depending on the country's import/export balance and doubtless other very complicated stuff, it probably does somewhat. This and related questions really need answers from qualified economists. Hello? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To leave the Eurozone and replace the Euro with a new currency would be economic, financial, and political suicide. The only country that could pull it of would be Germany (and perhaps France). Flamarande (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Legal tender is largely irrelevant. Legal tender is something which you have to accept in payment of debts. You are allowed to accept other things and you are allowed to refuse legal tender if there isn't a debt (eg. when you buy something in a shop - the exchange of goods for money is instantaneous, so there is no debt involved). If the Greek people want to carry on using the Euro and the shops only accept Euros, they would be allowed to unless some new laws are passed. The bank transfer is a one-time thing anyway - after the devaluation, you can transfer it back. Only money you hold denominated in the new Greek currency at the time of the devaluation would be devalued. --Tango (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<OR>I don't know the first thing about the mechanics of a currency change but I guess there would be some kind of exchange ratio applied to the values of Greek denominated assets. So a share in a Greek company would go from 10 euros to 10X Greek dollars. A bank deposit in a Greek bank would also be a Greek asset as will non-financial assets like land. I don't think the holders of these assets will have any choice in the matter. Then the exchange ratio should be set so that capital markets don't go haywire after the change. As time passes, euro notes and coins in circulation will slowly decrease.</OR> As mentioned above, this is a very unlikely scenario. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is roughly how it is done. You do have a choice about whether to keep your money in a Greek bank, though, which is my point. The idea isn't just to change back to a Greek currency, but to devalue that currency, which comes after everything you describe. It is best not to have your assets denominated in a currency you know is about to be devalued and it is really easy to move your assets out of Greece while it is in the Eurozone, so why would anyone keep any significant assets denominated in the new Greek currency until after the devaluation? --Tango (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like people have been taking their money out of Greek banks [15] but I don't know if they're worried about the currency changing or if they just don't have faith in the banking system there. As for non-cash assets, it would be hard to sell them at a fair price right now. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can't devalue non-cash assets, so they don't matter - devalue the currency and the price just increases to compensate. --Tango (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about Greece hypothetically leaving the Eurozone - this would increase uncertainty which would affect all Greek assets. Also, as the currency weakens there would be more uncertainty around inflation, sovereign credit strength and growth - these will cause risk premiums to increase which will affect all assets. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Supreme Court case on copyright
Resolved
– The astounding speed of the Reference Desk continues to irritate me.
I remember reading that there was a US Supreme Court case in which one party argued (for whatever reason) that copyright is an intrinsic right like freedom of speech, and the court said no, copyright is an artificial construct created for the benefit of society. Any cites? (If we do find a cite, we can use it to source the following {{citation needed}} in the philosophy of copyright article: "Consequentialism or instrumentalism is the legal foundation of copyright law in the United States.") « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 09:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the US constitution makes it clear in Article 1, Section 8 that it's not a natural right (at least according to the constitution), but that congress may make laws to protect it. I'd say its much more natural that I'm allowed to repeat what is in my head, and that's the way society worked until very recently... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but I'm looking for a reliable source that explicitly spells it out rather than implying it from a unstated negative. Yeah, I know I'm nitpicking given that it's in the freaking Constitution, but still, it would probably be considered OR here on Wikipedia to derive this from that sentence without another source to back it up. « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 09:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are asking about the case Wheaton v. Peters though it looks like the article about it is pretty thin. You should read Lessig's book Free Culture which you can download under a Creative Commons license if you don't want to buy a printed copy. It discusses the case at some length and is suitable for secondary sourcing on the issue (of course there are other secondary sources that disagree with Lessig and should also be represented). 69.228.170.24 (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Diplomatic niceties meant that the first diplomatic representative of Israel in the United Kingdom was not formally termed an 'Ambassador'. Dr Mordecai Eliash was appointed in April 1949 as 'representative of Israel'. On 13 May 1949 he was raised to the status of 'Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary'; he was not formally an Ambassador. Dr Eliash was born in Ukraine but educated in Britain; he died in post on 12 March 1950. His successor, Eliyahu Eilat, was named to the same post and on 20 October 1952 was raised to the status of Ambassador. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Women's magazines
I've been flicking through a couple of women's magazines, and there are lots and lots of photos of people, but almost all of them are of women, less than 3% or 4% are of men. Why is that? 89.242.97.110 (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since they contain articles about women, and ads tailored to them, it would makes sense, wouldn't it ? Showing women's clothes on men would look a bit odd, as would a man giving a testimonial on how "Playtex has products for my light days and my heavy days". StuRat (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...ummm. It would seem quite reasonable then by Sicilian standards that there should be more men in woman's magazines than women since men are supposed to interest women better. even in these modern times of homosexuality... or would that be womosexuality?71.100.1.71 (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There the diff is that men mainly get turned on by visual imagery, while verbal imagery does it for women. Hence the scarcity of porn made for women and romance novels written for men. StuRat (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a woman let me answer this. The ads in women's magazines which feature beautiful girls and women are selling products; the subliminal message being, buy these products and you will become like the women you see in the pictures. It's the same with billboards and tv commercials.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remember, when I was in Verona, there was a giant intimissimi billboard, blindingly illuminated at night, right where the road made an unexpected turn and a major side road merged. I always suspected it was sponsored by a body shop ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, it probably was! Actually you probably noticed that there are just as many ads for cars in Italy as lingerie. The car is as revered in modern Italy as the cat in ancient Egypt.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are different values at play. A man does not necessarly say he wants to be beautiful, or want anything to enhance his beauty. In the clothes trade; approx. five times more womens' clothes are sold than mens'. Maybe men live on a different planet? MacOfJesus (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lure of beauty in advertising works for men as well. Haven't you seen handsome men advertising cologne or aftershave? There are quite a few male models now; at least in Europe where in some of the countries (Italy, France for example) men pay as much for their clothes as women and are twice as vain about their appearance. I happen to reside in the former nation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience men's clothes are very much more expensive than women's clothes, which may account for women spending more as they get better value for money. For example the cheapest man's made to measure suit that I could find a few years ago cost £500, with £1000 being a more likely price, while a woman could buy a LBD for £10. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Women do not need made to measure, at least for most dresses. The typical dress does not require fitting for leg- or sleeve-length, nor jacket-length. I do not like having to wear suits, I do not like having to pay for them, I'd wear a £10 LBD instead if I could avoid getting arrested. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marks&Spencers' Stores have so much more womens' clothes than mens'. This is a good "yard-stick" as it is a "middle-of-the-road" store. Yes there are a few men models. But the gap between the man and the woman is perhaps very large in the modern world. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
monarchy power
What monarchs throughout the world can still say "Off with their heads!" and have their henchmen to that very thing and not be charged with murder? 71.100.1.71 (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very few true monarchies exist in the world. Only a few Pacific nations, as well as Swaziland in Africa, are still officially ruled by a king. There are also similar sultunates and sheikhdoms in the Middle East. Beheading powers? Unlikely to be that way, but I suppose they have control over any major executions. 2D Backfire MasterSerious? Nope.12:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Granting pardons isn't the same as condemning to death. Pretty much all the countries with capital punishment allow a single person to grant pardons, sometimes a President, and sometimes a king or queen. I'm not aware of any nations where this person still condemns someone to death. StuRat (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the same thing, sure, but I can image the Saudi king being asked, "Do you want to pardon this convicted adulterer/sorcerer/human rights activist?" and answering, "No way. Off with his head!" — Kpalion(talk)15:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2D Backfire Master: Not sure what you mean by "Very few true monarchies exist in the world". Maybe your concept of a monarchy is the medieval, Hollywood-enhanced, absolute monarchy, where the king's word was law. The modern-day monarchies such as those of the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Spain et al are not remotely like that, but they are still undoubtedly "true monarchies". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have said that that CIA assassination was an act of war, for two reasons: 1)What's the war? 2)It was targeted, and specifically done because of the individual person—Obama didn't just say, "Go kill terrorists." ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 15:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The War on Terror". Or "World War III", as some call it. Assuming the Guardian story is true (and I don't know if that source is reliable), this would go along with American traditions of trying to gun down enemy leaders (Yamamoto [sp?], Castro, Diem [sp?], Saddam, etc.) As we all know, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict with Bugs)I think 71.100's asking for cases where a leader can unilaterally decide to have someone killed, not that beheading is the specific way it's done. Under this criterion I don't think Saudi Arabia would apply: if King Abdullah decided to have someone publically killed just because, I don't think people would just let it happen. I would imagine that North Korea would fit this definition, though in practice it's hard to know what goes on in there. In fact, most dictatorships probably fit the bill. Would Muammar al-Gaddafi get away with it? I suspect that he would. Perhaps Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, though in his case he's got the International Criminal Court out to get him. If we count assassinations, then the list surely includes almost every world leader, though that's a case where the people try to keep the connection secret, that is, they probably would be arrested for it if people knew about it. Buddy431 (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look at this list: List_of_monarchies#Absolute monarchies. Those which are listed as current absolute monarchies are: Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, and The Vatican. So, presumably they could order executions. There are also numerous subnational monarchies listed, some of which may have the right to hold executions. That list doesn't include North Korea, which is an absolute monarchy in all but name. There are many other totalitarian governments, too, such as Burma/Myanmar. There may be a fine distinction to be made about whether executions ordered by leaders of those nations are "legal", but I don't distinguish based on that. StuRat (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that there are areas beyond the control of the central government, like the Tribal Areas of Pakistan, where the local leader, whatever he calls himself, may very well order executions. StuRat (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you're an English layer living in a country with a history of any soldier walking the street being able to run a blade through your gut for most any reason and so you have no problem with Monarchys being able to say "Off with their heads!". I can dig that but wouldn't it be more lucrative for you if they were required to hire you to represent the condemned first? 71.100.1.71 (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean English lawyer?! Which modern country allows their soldiery such unlimited power and yet has English lawyers as residents? I cannot think of such a place offhand, so pray enlighten me as you've sparked my curiosity.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean an English person trained somewhere as a lawyer possibly either England or Italy who is living in Italy now and who has become accustomed to the idea that death at the hands of anyone above a slave with any political standing whatsoever is perfectly acceptable owing to the history of the region. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has completely disintegrated into the realms of the absurd. IMO, it's pointless and a waste of our time to respond further on this thread.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, wow. Roughly how long ago is your imaginary English person living? The short answer to your original question is that there is nowhere in the world whose government is defined as a monarchy AND whose head of state could reasonably get away with ordering a summary execution. Those of us who live in monarchical nations do not think of monarchy as being defined in terms of power over individuals, and generally speaking, have not done so for some centuries. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I few years back a little known seller of electric bicycles employed an online forum to help buyers help each other. Today the site has thousands of users and the company has distributors in Canada and Brazil and dealers in the US. However, while the forum hosting service is located in Detroit the web site deletes any topic if a comment or question about quality or warranty support in reference to Communist China is made or raised. Just how extensive is censorship in China and what is really happening behind the scenes? Is China preparing to overthrow the world and is it just trying to keep it a secret for now? 71.100.1.71 (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) How do you know topics are being deleted do to "censorship in China" and are not instead being deleted for simply being off-topic? It would be helpful if you told us which seller or manufacturer you were talking about. As for China secretly plotting to overthrow the world ... I would say that is an extremely unlikely scenario. Astronaut (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not hard to find electric bike forums or manufactures and due some original research of your own if that is what you have in mind. Not overthrowing the world was the common assumption due to historical "trinity" of Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism behind Chinese Philosophy. But then the Chinese were force to endure opium and now Communism, which has lead to the point of America being shocked at the creation of atomic weapons, extensive underground works started back in the '50s, the more recent shooting down of Satellites and now prevailing and extensive censorship, western Philosophy does not and cannot tolerate. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
China's internet censorship has nothing to do with whether or not "preparing the overthrow the world." The odds are that the site deletes discussions that are of this nature because failing to do so would get their site blocked in China which would hurt their business. Much of China's censorship is, ultimately, self-censorship: it's the site owner or ISP censoring, not because the government has gone to them in that instance and said "censor," but because they are afraid that if they push the line, then the government might get involved. The effect is that ISPs and site owners are often pretty conservative—maybe even more conservative than the law requires—because they don't want to attract negative attention. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It worked fine so long as I had enough quartz to make fire to roast palmetto bugs and other tasty treats for lunch. In fact I've found a way to increase my standard of living by inviting the Marsh Arabs to forsake Iraq and Iran and to join me here as soon as they dare. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
71.100, you have to give us links, and not ask us to just google electric bike manufacturers to see what you are talking about. Otherwise we have to speak in grossly inadequate generalities, as Bugs has had to do above. A counterpoint, by the way, to Bugs's generality (which on the whole I would certainly agree with) is Google's recent withdrawal from China as a result of their decision to no longer censor searches as requested by the government. This is a story about an interesting Google story listing how many requests Google receives per country for handing over user data or removing content — China is off the chart, and not listed because such requests are considered state secrets. Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When was the women of Korea unveiled?
I have been told that women in old Korea, especially upper-class women, lived confided to their homes and was forced to cover themselwes with a veil if they left the house during the day. When did this end? And how? I have the impression that this was still the case in 1905, but not in 1945, is this correct? When could Korean upper-class women show themselwes on the streets of Seul without a veil? I have read a poem by a Korean woman, who describes how she is allowed out of the home for the first time: this was from 1920. I hope someone can answer, I would be grateful. --Aciram (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is spelled Seoul in English. Before the late 19th century is was uncommon for Korean women to be economic actors. A small minority of women played an active role in society and even wielded political influence. These people included female shamans (mudang), who were called upon to cure illnesses, tell fortunes, or in other ways enlist the help of spirits in realizing the wishes of their clients. Despite its sponsorship of neo-Confucianism, the Choson Dynasty had an office of shamanism, and female shamans often were quite influential in the royal palace. The female physicians who treated female patients (because male physicians were forbidden to examine them) constituted another important group of women. Sometimes they acted as spies or policewomen because they could get into the female quarters of a house. Still another group of women were the kisaeng. Some kisaeng, or entertainers, were merely prostitutes; but others, like their Japanese counterparts the geisha, were talented musicians, dancers, painters, and poets and interacted on nearly equal terms with their male patrons. The kisaeng tradition perpetuated one of the more dubious legacies of the Confucian past: an extreme double standard concerning the sexual behavior of married men and women that still persists.
Women were primarily raised to become mothers, their education prepared them to take care of their families and homes. As the country began to open its boarders women were given more opportunities to receive fomal education and generally given more rights then were previously afforded them. As for the use of a veil, I'm unclear to what you are refering to. It is possible you mean the Ssukae Ch'ima, whch is a type of cloak that women commonly wore in public for warmth. The hanbok, a traditional dress, serves as the outer layer of a outfit which consists of several different items of clothing. Tradtional dress is still worn today, though usually reserved for special occassions as it is both bulky and quite expensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.66.195 (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an image of the veil, I do not know what it was called: http://ieas.berkeley.edu/images/cks/kang11_women_hood.jpg. As far as I have understood the matter, upper-class women was not allowed to show themselwes in public, and if they did so, they must cover themselwes in a similar manner to Islamic women. This was done for moral reasons, I have been told.
They were also to have been confined to their homes, and did not participate in a gender-mixed social life, but were only allowed to show themselwes to other women, and to men they were related or married to. I have read, that in 19th-century Korea, women rarely show temselwes on the streets of Seol at all during day time: at eight o'clock, a bell rang, signaling that the streets was reserved for women; and at twelve o'clock, it rang again, signaling that the women should return home. When did this custom stop? In 1905/1910?
When did upper-class Korean women start to mix with men in social life, and when were they allowed to show temselwes in public, on the streets of Seol, without covering up with a veil? I have the impression, that all this changed somwhere in the 1920s? The poem from 1920 describes how a woman lived isolated in her home untill "times changed" and the changing new customs of society allowed her to leave the house. How did this come about, and when did it become common for women merely to show themselwes in public? In the 1920s?
I understand that the question can be complicated, and you are very helpfull. I am ignorant in this, and I find it very interesting, so I am very gratefull for all information.--Aciram (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As upper-class women of old Korea was expected to live in seclusion, how was the role of women at court? Was the queens, the royal women and their lady-in-waitings excepted from seclusion, or were they also prevented from having any contanct with men? --Aciram (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you asked the previous question? There really is no short answer for your question and "old Korea" dosen't help to explain what time period you are asking about. The Korean medieval kingdom was founded in 2333 BC. The country has a long and rich history and gender roles as well as the position of women has changed throughout the centuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.66.195 (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, this question is about the women of the royal court in particular, not about Korean women in general, as my previous question above. But, of course, you are fully correct: I should have specified my question more. My question here concerns the period of 1392-1905. Was the queens, the women of the royal family and their lady-in-waitings excluded from a gender-mixed social life? Did they have contant with men at court, or were they only allowed contant with men they were related or married to, and otherwise limited to female company? I have came to understand that upper-class Korean women was generally not allowed contanct with men outside the family, was this so? But perhaps the customs at the royal court was different? Was royal women limited to only female company, or did they show themselwes in a gender-mixed company at court? --Aciram (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a myth among US notaries public, which can be found frequently repeated on notary discussion boards such as http://www.notaryrotary.com/ (use the Notary Talk tab). The concept is that a person may only have one legal name at a time. As a consequence, a person who changes his/her name (such as a woman who gets married) can no longer sign anything using the old name (for example the woman might have owned property under the old name, but now can't sell it because she can't sign the deed). Does anyone know of a definitive source that indicates if there is any truth to this myth?
I used the phrase "so-called legal name" because I'm not convinced such a thing really exists, despite the careless manner in which certain executive branch officials act as if it did (especially motor vehicle officials). Jc3s5h (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do have an article on Legal name, though it's rather thin. It does point out that the US follows the common law process of name change by non-fraudulent use. The latter article references legal decisions Lindon v. First National Bank and In re McUlta. The last is probably relevant, with this quote from the decision: "A name is used merely to designate a person or thing. It is the mark or indica to distinguish him from other persons, and that is as far as the law looks." In the name change article, it is noted that for some states "Some jurisdictions require that the new name be used exclusively ..., while others have no such requirement ..." (Ellipses are references to court cases and laws). This indicates that some confusion may be jurisdictional in nature. Notaries public are usually certified for a particular state, so making broad generalizations for the US in general based on an individual's experience may be troublesome. -- 174.21.225.115 (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is an information chart not a comparative chart, concentrating on "the facts", and in alphabetical order. I think that if Wikipedia attempted this it would be edited and deleted to non-existence! MacOfJesus (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This would be known as All Souls Day (November 2), in the English speaking world, in the Catholic Church. Three special Masses are outlined in the Liturgy. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Young David in I Samuel
Did David kill the lion and bear before or after he was anointed by the prophet Samuel? I have searced many sites and reference books to no avail. 66.56.22.96 (talk)
The text (I Sam 17:34-37) is not clear on this point, given that David continued to shepherd for his father after he was anointed. See [16] for a reasonable translation. --Dweller (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, you can find the answer to your question in the article Jehovah's Witnesses. Please read the articles before coming here with very general questions. If there is some part of the article you do not understand, or need clarification on, please feel free to ask. --Jayron3223:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, their official website (http://www.watchtower.org/) has articles in 399 languages and its own search function for articles in English.
Why is it, that if I saw someone being attacked and robbed/raped on the street and managed to fight off their assailant, I'd be hailed as a hero.
Yet if some country's government threatened sanctions and even war on an extremely oppresive and totalitarian regime unless they gave up power, they'd be laughed out of the house, and labelled crazy warmongers (and not even by their own citizens either, by various foreign ministers of other countries)?--92.251.185.162 (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the legal perspective: there is a general assumption that a government has a monopoly on violence within their country (in fact, it can be used as part of the definition of statehood). The laws of most countries include a right to defend yourself and others, but that is by the choice of the government and doesn't usually apply to violence sanctioned by the government. International law does not include a right for one country to defend the citizens of another country from their own government. --Tango (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But then the Q is why international law seems more concerned with the rights of governments than the rights of citizens. I suspect it's because international law was largely written by the brutal dictators, not by their oppressed citizens. StuRat (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An exception to Tango's last sentence is when the crime of genocide is being committed by that government, at which point the UN's mandate includes sending in troops to stop it; but our Rwandan Genocide article illustrates an example of all other countries minding their own business despite this mandate. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the UN basically makes international law, so it can make exceptions to it (although I think you only need the Security Council to authorise such an invasion, you need the General Assembly to make new laws). Countries can't unilaterally intervene to stop genocide within another country. --Tango (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May 3
Handing out titles of the Peerage of England - how was land involved?
I have read peerage of England, and similar articles about peerage in the UK, and I have looked up some of the oldest peerages like the baron de Ros. But I don't understand how some of these peerages are decided. For example I assume, that before being "Earl of Someplace", you needed in the feudal system to some have authority over "Someplace", for example, own a large part of the land, or have barons in that land that are your vassals, and that themselves own a fair amound of land. So when a peer was getting a title, would that peer be given some of the crown lands in that area? Woudl the barons be told that the new peer is now their new local reporting line? Would the recipeint, instead, be given this peerage only if they already owned significant amount of land. Also, is there a time where the land became totally unrelated to the title? Thanks for any pointers. --Lgriot (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the first peerages that was viewed as a personal honor rather than something linked to territory was created in 1388. See History_of_the_Peerage. Nowadays there is virtually no link to land for peers in the peerage of the United Kingdom, and only minimal linkage in terms of affecting peers in the peerage of Scotland (for example, a peer must be domiciled in Scotland in order to legitimate his bastard children by subsequent marriage to their mother, and feudal baronies exist in Scotland, though they are not peerages). Modern territorial designations tend toward places with personal associations rather than placed once or currently ruled (e.g., Lord Mountbatten of Burma). - Nunh-huh02:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] All I can answer is your final question — yes, there surely was such a time, but I'm not sure when it was. You can consider John Jervis, who was created Earl of St Vincent (c. 1800) even though St Vincent is in Portugal, not in England. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it (which may not be spot on), peerages and similar constructs in other regions of the world were originally designed as political/military/economic structures. basically, a ruler would lay claim over a particular region of land which was too extensive for him to defend and monitor directly, and so he would select people to take control of various regions (local defense against invasion, organization of production, tax collection, etc), often as a reward for loyalty, and allow them to build small military forces from the local populations. it's the same idea as a colonial governor (except that a colonial governor generally works through some pre-established local political system, and doesn't raise his own troops but is supplied with troops by the crown). part of being a peer, of course, would be the construction of fortresses, keeps, and residences, and these structures would (de facto) belong to the peer and his heirs, leading to some fairly extensive land-ownership in noble families. --Ludwigs206:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, some peerages were created when William the Conqueror gave lands to the generals who fought alongside him in the Norman Conquest: an example of this would be (my direct ancestor) the Earl of Hastings. So the land followed the favour, rather than the favour following the land. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The British Isles were subject to a form of feudalism called bastard feudalism. Our article on the subject is a bit weak, but here's how it works in simple terms. In other countries during the early and high middle ages, local nobles (dukes and counts and stuff like that) were semi-independent from their king. They technically owed fealty to the king, but in general each duchy or county ran independent from the kingdom or empire they were nominally part of. Indeed, such fiefdoms often had a history that was as old, or older, than their parent kingdom, for example the Duchy of Burgundy and the County of Burgundy, fiefs of France and the Holy Roman Empire respectively, can claim decent from the Kingdom of BurgundyOver time, one of two things happened: either the kingdom became centralized, and the duchies/counties lost their territorial connection (as happened in France in the 15th and 16th centuries) or they didn't, and the kingdom/empire lost its own true identity, becoming mostly ceremonial (as happened in Germany under the Holy Roman Empire). In Post-conquest England specifically, however, there may have never actually been a strong connection to territory, since William the Conquerer really erased most of Englands political structure. Under the Normans, titles were always handed down as political favors rather being strongly held to the land. While there may have been some territorial connection to English titles (for example, the right to levy taxes or conscript people into military service) there were never really feudal "sub-states" in England the way there was on the continent, hence "bastard feudalism." --Jayron3212:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While England certainly never had semi-independent duchies such as Brittany or Burgundy, the Welsh Marcher lords possessed a lot of personal power, and often ran their domains like rival kingdoms. In fact, it was said that the "King's writ did not extend beyond the Wye".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any substantive identification will begin with the site where this wall painting is located. The particular wife will only be identifiable if her name is connected with his as patroness of the particular church. No clues are to be found in the strictly conventional representation. --Wetman (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might help if you found a date of birth for the son depicted in the picture. Try Charles Cawley's Medieval Lands. He uses primary source records, and his dates are very accurate.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I hadn't realised George lived in the 18th century. Cawley stops at the early 16th century as he only deals with medieval royalty and nobility. I had assumed from the picture that George lived earlier. I'm afraid I cannot help you, QEIILS.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. The article says George lived in the 18th century, yet the painting allegedly dates from the 16th century! Perhaps it's not of George VII but rather an earlier Georgian king, and thus needs to be removed from the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec; great minds think alike) Perhaps you're remembering the film Super Size Me, where little kids all quickly identified Ronald McDonald, but were less sure about Washington, Jesus, etc. —KevinMyers06:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a programme where it was opined that if people saw Jesus and Elvis walking on opposite sides of the street, they'd flock to Elvis instead of Jesus. Therefore it doesn't surprise me that more people recognised Ronald McDonald.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That probably wouldn't be true for Abraham Lincoln (who has a significant presence in children's TV programming). it's just a function of commercialization. RM is goofy and brightly colored; GW is fairly boring by comparison, and not very much use in getting kids to pester their parents into buying them unhealthy crap. to my mind, there should be a federal law barring commercials from children's television. it's one thing to try to convince an adult to buy something (adults - at least putatively - have the cognitive skills to make up their own minds), but kids are just to easy to manipulate. --Ludwigs206:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yeah, but what will fund the children's TV shows? Unless you're suggesting that children's content should only be restricted to public television. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 07:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, no one would recognize Jesus if they actually saw him (presuming that he doesn't have a chorus of angels or something to back him up). Just saying. Buddy431 (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remember seeing a tv show where they tried to reconstruct what Jesus might have looked like using forensic anthropology techniques (based on similar people from his asserted region of birth, family career, presumed social class, etc.). The model they came up with was a fairly short (by modern standards) but likely heavily muscled semitic Jew; fairly far from the emaciated semi-nordic jesus that's usually portrayed in Christian images. Though of course, the halo and the walking on water are kind of give-aways. --Ludwigs208:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do remember the scene from Super Size Me, which we were shown in school back in eighth grade. I was thinking there was another documentary, or maybe a news program, as well that did it with adults. I'm thinking something like that was done on Fox News in New York City. Anyways, thanks. 71.54.237.176 (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess that outside of the USA this would definitely be true and probably so amongst adults. As you don't specify which country you're asking about, the odds are pretty likely that it's correct. But there is a teensy chance you're assuming we know you mean the USA. --Dweller (talk) 09:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the OP did mention George Washington specifically in the section title. GW is more of an American icon than an international one. I don't think it's that unreasonable to assume the OP is asking about/from the US. Dismas|(talk)09:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I love this piece. :) If you Google Image Search it, a lot of results come up. (I can't really read sheet music, but I suspect you'll find what you need easy enough.) Avicennasis @ 16:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the piece, but this result from Avicennasis's search should be easy to play on the violin. If you want a longer or more complicated version, have a look at the other results in the search above. 86.178.228.18 (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Estate agents aggregation websites for finding property
What websites have different houses on them that are not found on rightmove.com please, particularly for south-eastern england? There are different property search websites, but many of them just have the same content that you get for rightmove. Thanks 92.28.253.63 (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am I correct in thinking or recalling that the daily published FTSE index number is not protected by copyright because it rapidly becomes common knowledge and is available from a large number of sources? In the same way that news does. Thanks 92.28.253.63 (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably in the UK, but I will chime in that in the US, the daily published FTSE index number would not be protected by copyright, not for the reasons you mention, but because, as this section of our US copyright article states, "no matter how much work was necessary to create a compilation, a non-selective collection of facts ordered in a non-creative way is not subject to copyright protection." In the US. By the way, the reasons you cite are 100% invalid for determining whether something is copyrightable — any popular book or YouTube video would lose copyright protection if your criteria were used. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The same principle applies in the UK. There could be database rights on some of the detailed figures, I suppose, but not on the simple index closing rate. Copyright doesn't apply to facts, just to the presentation of them, and there is only really one way to present a number so it isn't copyrightable. --Tango (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean that if someone put on their website a dozen different financial figures each day, out of the thousands published daily, then they would not have any copyright problems? 92.28.253.63 (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. People can publish things like stock indicies values and generally be safe from copyright infringement. As noted above, a simple number is not itself copyrightable. You cannot wholesale copy the specific presentation of those numbers, so, for example, you can't copy the entire financial section of the Wall Street Journal; but just reporting numbers that are previously reported elsewhere are generally not copyright violations. If you have genuine concerns, however, you should contact an intellectual property lawyer. If you act on any advice given at Wikipedia, and are later sued for copyright infringement, it's your own problem. PLEASE do not take ANY action based upon this conversation. None of us are copyright lawyers, so this idle conversation should not serve as advice on how to act. --Jayron3219:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
shouldnt there be a link in this article in the section civilrights movement to lynching. i mean, the lynching played an important role in this movement.....?
--Corduroycouch (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a link in the section before it that says something about "racially motivated violence." If you think it needs elaboration, by adding a short clause, such as "racially motivated violence, such as lynching." then you should feel free to boldly add it. However, if you wish to discuss such an addition, the appropriate place to discuss changes to an article is at the article's talk page, in this case Talk:African American. Raise the question there, and see what people's response is. --Jayron3218:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heuristics for doing difficult and complicated things?
Lets say you want to, for example, start a new budget airline company - WikiJet. You know no more about the industry than the average man in the street.
One heuristic I've heard of is "break big projects down into small steps". The problem is, you don't know what the small steps should be.
A heuristic I've thought of myself is writing a plan like early explorers drew maps of the unknown: Version 1 of your plan/map is very vague, but after you've approached and explored the problem and learnt more, you draw a refined Version 2 and discard Version 1. You repeat this for Version n.
If you are talking specifically about starting an airline or other company, generally founding a company generally always follows the same basic procedure, starting out with developing a detailed business plan, obtaining initial investment from venture capitalists, organizing an executive board of some sort to oversee the establishment of the company, etc. etc. If you are talking in more vague terms, such as "how to do any complicated task you can't do by yourself", in general then you may be talking about Management, there are lots of management models, the Management article discusses a few of these. --Jayron3219:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That classic routine approach is all very well where you have a lot of knowledge of what is concerned, my point is I'm looking for useful heuristics where you do not have that knowledge. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty simple then: 1) Find someone who DOES know what to do. 2) Ask them to help you or do it for you. At some level, you need to either educate yourself or find someone who actually knows... --Jayron3220:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't "get it". Either nobody knows, or you don't have access to those few people who may know. Stavros is not going to tell you. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking through antique chinese jewelry today in Ebay, and I came across a new descriptive term for bone or ivory carving, which was "vivid" as a material description - not an editorial description, i.e. "Handcraft Carved Vivid ox Bone Cat Jewelry box 81" - these sites have almost no real data on what , how big, etc. a product is - what struck me was the term "vivid" seemed to be used to describe the material itself.
What does "Handcraft Carved" signify? Not machine-carved? Then, how has "handcraft" become an adjective replacing "hand-"? In "Cat Jewelry Box" does "Cat" modify jewelry, as in "cat jewelry", such as a cat might wear? Or box, as in "cat box"? In Ebay descriptions, the use of words reflects the culture and educational status of the seller as much as anything.--Wetman (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Over time how has ......
over time how has a guy determined if a girl is beautiful or not?? i mean 500 years ago they would have had a different concept of beauty... right??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 20:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Beauty, especially the historical section, and Physical attractiveness. To answer your question: Less than you may think. There is some individual variation among people as to what they find attractive, but spread over all of humanity, certain trends develop among what people find beautiful. In other words, yes, there are differences, but less than you would think. --Jayron3220:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.PNG)
--Ludwigs2 21:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
). I'm just curious if anyone knows any relevant case law. --Ludwigs2 18:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Resolved
