Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

November 4

US State declaring bankruptcy

Has a US state ever declared bankruptcy? I have a friend from the state of Indiana who claims they once defaulted and as such came to an agreement with their creditors that they are disallowed to ever take on debt. I can't find anything about this, and it sounds a little excessive - I'm sure there's a nugget of truth to what he told me, as well as an exaggeration. I'm interested because I'm absolutely convinced California is on the path to bankruptcy (or bailout) - if there were a way to invest against it, I would take it.

On a side note, are there any municipalities not mentioned at Category:Government units that have filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy that have declared bankruptcy? Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your friend is thinking of the Indiana Mammoth Internal Improvement Act and its aftermath. DuncanHill (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"So, what shall we call this act to enable really big improvements to our state infrastructure ?"

"Well, we could call it the Really Big Internal Improvement Act."

"Naah, that just sounds silly. How about ..." Gandalf61 (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, many did in the 19th century. Here is a page with some examples, don't know how complete it is. The last mentioned is Arkansas in 1933.John Z (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not exactly right. They may have defaulted, but that's always been different than "bankruptcy". The link you provided doesn't even talk about bankruptcies, and in 1933 the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 was in effect which certainly didn't permit States to declare bankruptcy (or put more correctly, the States didn't allow the federal government to administrate their debts). Shadowjams (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If you think California's fiscal situation is going to hell, one way you can profit is by buying credit default swaps on California debt. A CDS is insurance against default. The greater the risk of default, the higher the price of the CDS. You could have tripled your money in a few months last winter had you bought CDS's on Greek debt and sold them during the peak of the European debt crisis. That said, I don't know where an average person can go to buy credit default swaps. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the "1840s" entry in John Z's link, Sydney Smith was rather upset that Pennsylvania defaulted on its bonds (in which he had invested) and vented his spleen on the subject in some articles and letters, as was Wordsworth, who wrote a sonnet "On the Pennsylvanians". The state apparently did, however, eventually make good on its debt. Deor (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The above link (how it's described) isn't accurate... States cannot declare bankruptcy. In fact, States cannot be compelled to pay their debts (except maybe to the federal government). In fact the link is really referring to modern municipality bankruptcies which are covered under Chapter 9, but implicitly are with the consent of the state that they're in. The states have sovereign immunity which effectively precludes them from federal court jurisdiction, except in specific circumstances. The 11th amendment provides some key background on this fact. But no, a State has never formally declared Bankruptcy under the modern constitution, to my knowledge. I'd be very surprised if I'm wrong on that point... although if I am please tell me soon... Shadowjams (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Help in identifying found necklace for unknown deity (possibly Germanic in origin?)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3544/3336377574_af608d9a32_m.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3369/3336377368_78d76f9abd_m.jpg http://www.flickr.com/photos/36083176@N05/

So, kind of a long story but, about 15 years ago my oldest brother found this somewhere near our middle school. We asked the nuns there at the time what it was and the only answer we could get was the usual "it's the devil!" My brother passed away last year, and while settling his belongings we rediscovered it in a small jewelry box. Since then I have been trying to figure out what it is, but have had little luck.

I think it is related to late 1800's American Occultism because of the amalgamation of several different mythologies. The serpent eating it's tail is Germanic in origin I believe. The body of the figure on the front reminds me more of a Greek or Roman deity, but the head seems Egyptian. The text is Greek I believe, and the ABPACAE on the back I have seen referred to as a "mystic name" but I have no idea what that really means. Anyone have any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.46.60 (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There is some information in our article on Abraxas (aka Abrasax). It even has an image of a similar piece of jewelry. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Just beat me to it... see also this image. Also, my sympathies about your brother. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

And see in particular the section on Abrasax stones. The creature is sometimes called "anguiped". ---Sluzzelin talk 00:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

North & South Indian migrants in Northeast India

How many North and South Indians migrate to Northeast India each year? How many of them return from the Northeast India? 99.245.73.51 (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The number of South Indians would be quite marginal, limited to staff in government institutions. --Soman (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

A political science question on violence in some areas

Any good resources/links/starting points for this question:

Why have some ethnically diverse countries and localities experienced many instances of violence, while others have not? Evaluate the competing theoretical approaches, and examining the empirical evidence in the cases of India, Nigeria, former Yugoslavia, and Rwanda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.147.31 (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't answer homework questions here, unless you show that you did at least some of the work yourself and are stuck at some particular point. That said, ex-Yugoslavia was a model multicultural state up until to the war, so it had a by far longer history of peace and cooperation between ethnicities than it did of violence. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll add, this is a very complex question with a number of different theoretical approaches. you'd best stick to the resources your teacher pointed you to, oterwise you're going to swamp yourself and/or doa crappy job with it. --Ludwigs2 21:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Eugene O'Neill play with "Ape II" yacht and rowing crew race?

Hi, all. I'm almost sure I remember reading a short O'Neill play, years and years ago, in which one of the scenes took place on a yacht named, Ape II. Can anyone remind me of the name of the play? I recall the yacht belonged to a wealthy industrialist. Its socialite passengers were watching an Ivy-League crew (rowing) race on some American river and, as I recall, the dramatic tension was supposed to revolve around whether the industrialist's son ("Gordon"?) had inherited a tendency to mental illness from, I think, his troubled mother. It wasn't a very plausible story line, nor a very creditable work, as I recall (although I esteem O'Neill mightily for his other work); the idea was that if the son's team won the race that would somehow prove that he had not inherited the tendency. Btw, I'm of course familiar with The Hairy Ape; that's not the play I'm thinking of. Extra points ;-) if anyone happens to remember the home port of the yacht; I'm pretty sure that was mentioned in the play, as well. I'm asking because a good friend has a life-ring labeled "Ape II" and (I think) something like "Vinalhaven" as the home port that he displays in his home and that he says belonged to a relative's yacht by that name. It looks like a theatrical prop to me, seems to be made of paper and paste, and I think I recall the boat and port from O'Neill. Don't worry, I don't intend to call him on the conceit ( we all have our secret vanities, I suppose ) but the thing always sets my brain a-buzz, trying to remember the name of the play, every time I visit his house, and it would be nice to know. Any help appreciated. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What you're describing is almost certainly Act 8 of Strange Interlude, but in a hasty scan of the act I don't see that the boat is anywhere named, Ape II or otherwise. Deor (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh! I'd read Strange Interlude at least twice, I know, although not for a decade or two. I just now re-read Act 8, and you're of course correct. But no mention of Ape II. Very odd. I suppose it's possible I've confused two distinct stories in my recollection. Perhaps a short play by a different (?) author, published along with Strange Interlude in a collection of plays? I was so nearly certain ... As I recall, the industrialist yacht-owner was touting himself as something like the next step in man's evolutionary development, and had named his boat accordingly. I'm more confused about my recollection than ever, but I appreciate your reply, Deor, very much, indeed. Thank you.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Male and female accents (?)

For some reason, I am absolutely "deaf" to regional accents spoken by male native speakers of my language. That is, I don't notice their accents until I really try to. I've been involve with acoustics for quite a while and listening to people is an important part of my RL work. I can analyze voices acoustically, emotionally etc. - but the former takes effort. The same regional accents in women's voices seem striking - they are the first thing I hear. So, silly jokes aside, is it just my own idiosyncrasy, or a sampling bias glitch, or is it something related to the physics of female formants? Or could it be that the same accent is, indeed, radically different between men and women from the same area, same social and educational background etc.? East of Borschov 10:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Anecdotally, having grown up with parents of four different accents (father was vaguely Oxonian, mum is East London by way of a decade or so in Scotland, stepfather is NZ, stepmother is quite plummy) and the associated extended family accents, there isn't much difference except in timbre. I'm thinking specifically of my maternal great-aunt and uncle, who are fairly cockney and indistinguishable apart from the basic male/female differences. Out of curiosity, are you able to distinguish the gay accent? While it seems to be confined to male homosexuals, it's still fairly distinct within (and occasionally from) a regional/class/etc accent. Your ability to hear/not hear that might shed some clue as to how or why your hearing difference exists. → ROUX ₪ 10:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have an interesting story that relates to this question. It's a bit long; I hope you won't object to that.

I'm friends with a speech-language pathologist, and a large part of her work involves listening over and over to recordings she has made of school kids who have complex speech impediments, trying to figure out what the kid is doing wrong with regard to placement of his lips/mouth/tongue as he speaks. A single sound substitution can often be identified by an untrained listener: when a five-year old can't say the letter "S", for example, it's typical that he will (unknowingly) substitute a letter he can enunciate; I once met one of her young clients who called his friend "Sam" by the sound "Ham". But when, as is often the case, a kid's speech is more of a jumble, and multiple substitutions for different sounds are taking place, it requires a lot of patience from a trained professional listening to the same "conversation", over and over, trying to understand what the kid is trying to communicate.

I remember one kid, in particular: My friend had listened to a recording of an initial session with him probably 20 times, with very little success. Even the kid's mother had great difficulty understanding him. My friend was very frustrated with her lack of progress. On a week end she visited another friend, who had made some marijuana brownies to try to help cope with the sickness from chemotherapy. My own friend isn't a drug user, had tried marijuana only in college, and that on a limited basis, but for some reason she indulged in eating a marijuana brownie with her friend. I saw her about six hours later, when she thought, as she said, the effects had completely subsided. Evidently they hadn't; because when she listened again to the recording of the kid, she was amazed. ( She always brings work home, she's profoundly dedicated; very overworked school employee. ) I was there, and I have no doubt from her response that her report of being able to understand the kid perfectly, without effort, was 100% accurate. She listened to tapes she had of other kids (three she'd puzzled out previously, one she hadn't listened to again after the initial evaluation) and had the same amazing experience of easy comprehension, no effort at all, she said, immediate understanding without having to replay and replay the recording, as she usually did. The results held up, too, i.e. the notes she made while evidently "under the influence" were accurate interpretations of what the kid was saying, or of what he thought he was saying, actually.

Now I would never encourage someone to try an illegal drug, but this example is corroborated by the experience of other drug users' reports, as I understand it. I've read that others have said that marijuana, especially, but also cocaine, can greatly enhance a person's ability to hear and simultaneously follow multiple "layers" in a musical performance, that they discover a richness and hear a complexity that they are sure is in fact objectively present, but that they never could grasp or appreciate before. Anyway, I thought you might be interested to hear of this because it seems to confirm the idea that the ability to "hear" complexity in sound might be state-dependent in some as-yet unresearched or undiscovered physiological way. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

A related trope, and much more common, is the drunken or stoned person who has a brilliant insight, and upon waking up, is embarassed by its banality. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm ... the incredulity I infer in the above comment prompted me to investigate a bit: (1) "And the drug also seems to heighten the hearing — so that, for instance, strange chord formations seem easier to analyze under marijuana." Time Magazine, 19 July, 1943. (2) "It was concluded that alcohol ingestion in moderate amounts alters the central auditory processing under difficult listening conditions. When compared with a previous study using marihuana, it was found that the discrimination ability was reduced by alcohol ingestion while marihuana significantly improved speech discrimination. Journal of Otolaryngology. 1980 Jun;9(3):207-14. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Very cool anecdote and sources, Ohio! :) CT, has there been a published study of the commonality of that trope, and if so how do those numbers compare with the relative frequency of having brilliant vs. banal insights when sober? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, it's my privilege and pleasure to announce that the 2010 OADDSC ( Ohio Award for Delightfully Droll & Supportive Commentary ) in the Truly Funny Demand for Sources category goes to .... WikiDao!!!!" Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, a quick search yielded the Ballmer Peak] graph, which I think concludes this matter. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Roux: I'm not familiar with real (that is, not Hollywood) English gay dialects - despite having lived in the United States for a couple of years (Chicago, New England - eons ago). I sometimes notice peculiar tones in German spoken by gays in Vienna, but it's a world city and my knowledge of German is very basic to make conclusions (what sounds like gay may in fact be Italian). My native Russian language does not have a gay culture of its own, for good or bad. East of Borschov 13:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt there's much explicit gender difference in accents, but there are probably sociological differences. Women (as a rule) are socially trained to be more cognizant of communication: it's entirely possible that women will be more aware that there are communication problems inherent in accents than men are, and therefore will be more likely to over-enunciate or otherwise try to compensate (which can often perversely increase the perception of an accent). --Ludwigs2 18:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Brains are very plastic, but also very in-tune with economics, i.e. with the advantages and disadvantages of provisioning the very "expensive" physiological resource of neurons for different purposes. Combine that realization with the recognition that we were, for the overwhelming majority of our species' evolution, nomadic tribesmen, hunter-gatherers. This background leads me to ask, "What individual or genetic advantage might result from deploying precious brain resources in this assymetrical way?" Since the "advantage" that men (and evolution) are most interested in with respect to women is the opportunity for mating with a high-value/high-status female, I have to wonder whether regional accents are good indicators of value/status among females in his region of the world? And since the "advantage" that our hunter-gatherer forefathers sought with respect to other males was usually centered around the ability to defeat a potential competitor in battle, well, what then? Why wouldn't male accents be important-enough to allocate neurons to, in the OP's environment and context? Perhaps (just guessing) he's a very large, physically-imposing man who never really had to worry much about competitors in possible battle? Thus questions of relative status (with which accents are often associated as telltales) don't matter as much for him with men, since he's not likely to have to fight them and they're not potential mating partners. These suggestions may be very far off the mark, of course; this is speculation entirely. Another alternative could be that the OP just happens to be at one end of a particular normal distribution that evolution is trying out to see if his particular provisioning of neuronal resources confers any long-term genetic advantage. He's a mutant, in other words (as are we all, of course) or a "specialist", if you want a more polite term, and nature is just watching and waiting, metaphorically, to see if his particular mutation constitutes an advantageous pattern for configuring the very expensive physiological real-estate of the brain. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanksgiving more important than Christmas?

I may be wrong but I get the sense over the decades the average american has shifted from thinking Christmas is the most important family holiday of the year to placing more emphasis on Thanksgiving. Is there any evidence for or against this anecdotal observation?

One bit of evidence I can think of is the days before Thanksgiving are the busiest travel days of the year since people are going to see extended families. Still is there any sort of survey that has asked people which they consider the more important family holiday? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I offer as counter evidence my own observation that American expats rarely celebrate Thanksgiving beyond America's borders, but take raucous pleasure in celebrating Christmas. Personally, I completely forgot Thanksgiving the first year I was in China. A Chinese friend mentioned that the day was TG day and I was rather shocked. On the other hand, I'd never forget Christmas. The Masked Booby (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with The Masked Booby. Most Americans consider Christmas far more important than Thanksgiving. As for travelling, perhaps the weather plays a large part in their decision to visit relatives in November rather than December as many airports get closed, flights cancelled, etc. due to poor weather conditions during the Christmas season.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Thanksgiving is the day you have a big meal so that you're ready to sit in line all night for those great Black Friday morning deals on Christmas presents. Rmhermen (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

A visit to the distant relatives on Thanksgiving is a way of seeing them over the holidays without having to share the really important day with folks you hardly know. (YMMV) —Kevin Myers 13:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The Thanksgiving vacation is shorter and less variable than the Christmas vacation. Almost everybody works for the first two days of the week, leaving only one day to travel. (Notice that all the people traveling on the day before Thanksgiving are presumably taking two-way trips. But some go back on Saturday and some go back on Sunday). There's no standard time that the Christmas vacation starts, so there's no big concentration of travel on one day. Paul (Stansifer) 13:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Historically, Thanksgiving was celebrated mostly in New England, where Christmas was largely ignored, until the 1860's or later. The modern "merchants' $mas"where people must spend themselves into the poorhouse buying gifts is largely a modern (20th century) invention. Edison (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Puritans didn't celebrate Christmas at all did they? Alansplodge (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture claims that the biggest food-gathering days of the year in America are Thanksgiving and Super Bowl Sunday. Presumably, Christmas is third. I'm sure a lot of Americans would say that Christmas is more "important" because it is (for them) a real religious holiday. Incidentally, I had a great experience with Thanksgiving in Prague at a big party held by the owners of a local hostel. They couldn't find turkeys so they served chicken, but it was great getting to know all the expats. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanksgiving more important than Christmas? Only in the same way that the World Series is the most important international sporting competition. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As an American, Christmas is a much bigger deal in this part of North Carolina than Thanksgiving (which is a somewhat-big deal). Thanksgiving is widely regarded here as an excuse to eat a lot, and yes, we do travel a lot to do that. Christmas however, at least in my family, tends to be something that we like to keep within the immediate family, and we usually (at least 75% of the time) celebrate it at home. We often do our traveling before or after Christmas, but it is somewhat rare that we (my family) travel for Christmas with someone else. I do come from a (semi) Christian family, so that obviously puts a different value on Christmas for my family than many families in the area who practice different faiths. Falconus^{p t c} 03:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanksgiving is an American holiday with spiritual overtones, while Christmas is a Christian holiday; with significant secular touches of harvest time and winter time thrown into them respectively. The shop-till-you-drop situation with Christmas really sprang up after World War II, when suddenly we were prosperous again after a 15-year depression-and-war doing-without period. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

How did Russian billionaires get rich?

The relevant articles tend to say thing like "made his fortune by capturing state assets at knockdown prices during Russia's rush towards privatisation". But how was this done, specifically? 92.28.250.172 (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

See Privatization in Russia. The cynical view would be that Boris Yeltsin (see the section on the 1996 election) essentially bribed a group of telecommunications and financial businessmen for their support in the 1996 election. The businessmen had become moderately rich in the initial privatization efforts (the government issued vouchers to buy shares in state industry. Most people sold theirs for cash to a smallish group of investors, who then made a lot of money), and then became fantastically rich when Yeltsin gave them large shares in some of Russia's state-owned assets. Buddy431 (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you know they got rich saving money by switching to DirecTV? [1]. Grsz¹¹ 14:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

When the Soviet Union and the ruble collapsed around 1991-1992, a lot of goods - particularly things like raw materials, scrap metals, etc - were still available at subsidized Soviet prices that did not take into account the fall in value of the ruble. If you were an insider with access to sources of these materials, they could be bought for almost nothing, and then sold on the open market for hard currency. The trick was that most goods were unavailable to the average post-Soviet consumer. You needed to have special connections to, for example, buy a ton of copper for pennies, and many of the persons who did did not understand capitalism enough to take advantage of those opportunities. But the few who did became millionaires almost overnight. --Xuxl (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

People's Republic Of China - no longer communist?

Is China still communist? Or is it now a capitalist country ruled by the communist party? Or what? Thanks 92.28.250.172 (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It has some aspects of communism and some aspects of capitalism. It is very difficult to have complete communism or complete capitalism. -- kainaw™ 14:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Economy of the People's Republic of China is pretty indepth. Grsz¹¹ 14:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It all depends, of course, on how you define "communism" and "capitalism". There is a rather bogus "no true Scotsman" argument that runs as follows: communist societies are not economically successful; modern day China is economically successful; therefore modern day China is not a true communist society. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

They have an authoritarian government which still exerts a strong degree of control over their economy, but they have loosened restrictions on private ownership and entrepreneurship. It's a self-consciously mixed or hybrid political and economic system. It's hard to categorize according to classical definitions of "Communist" or "capitalist," but then again, so is practically every Western economy, too. The labels are less important than they used to be. What people mostly want to know is how they act, not what the supposed underlying ideology is. They don't very well resemble anything of what Marx would have recognized as "Communist," albeit no "Communist" country ever has. They don't economically resemble the "Communism" that characterized the Soviet bloc during the Cold War. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

China was never communist, none of the countries were, communism is a state of having no real government, amongst a lot else. The point is that the soviet union, china and so on were aiming towards communism, hoping, or so they claimed, to achieve the ideals set out by Marx back in 1848. The question, then, is whether China is still aiming towards becoming such a land with no government and perfect equality..? 148.197.121.205 (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's why I make the distinction between the term "Communist" in the strict Marxist sense, and the term "Communist" that is used to describe the general forms of politics and economies of the Soviet Union, the early PRC, and so forth. In almost any case, people today mean the latter and to say "but they were never truly Communist in the sense that Marx meant" is usually just being pedantic unless one is specifically discussing Marx's writings. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Our article title on the latter is Communist state, and the article on the movement is of course Communism. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

See also Socialist market economy. As someone in China once put it, "We are the Communist Party, and we shall decide what Communism means." The Communist party is definitely in charge and in fact owns much (most?) of the country - companies, banks, you name it. Not entirely unlike state capitalism, keeping in mind that "state" in this case means the Party, not the official state. (This distinction is significant: the Chinese Communist Party actually exists outside and above the law and the state.) Some have drawn parallels between the reforms of Deng Xiaoping and the period of NEP in Lenin's Soviet Russia, when the Party permitted some measure of private enterprise. Finally, please pardon the plug, but there's a book about the rulers of China out recently called The Party, by Richard McGregor, which is very interesting reading indeed.--Rallette (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Earnestly-plugged references are always desirable, no need to excuse them. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Identity of subjects in 19th century painting

Inside one of the rooms at Arundel Castle, family seat of the Dukes of Norfolk, I recall having seen a portrait of two young women in 19th century costume. They are obviously members of the Fitzalan-Howard family, but can anyone identify them? Thank you. Their identity has bothered me since I first saw the portrait on a visit to the castle in 1975.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could ask the people at Arundel castle archive [2]? Surely they have records of the collection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Bio on Stephane Gauthier, a French Economist who received his PhD from MIT?

Kindly locate & add bio / cv of Dr. Stephane Gauthier, who received his PhD from MIT & is a French Economist in Paris. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.80.228 (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

All Wikipedia editors are volunteers. You are welcome to join us. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing on him at French wikipedia. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You, OP, may also want to read our "notability" requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (people), but you may also request a new article at WP:Requested articles/Biographies. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This may be the person concerned, if anyone wishes to consider doing something about it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

divorce rates with and without prenuptial agreements

Hello expert researchers. I am looking to find out if divorce rates are different for couples that have prenuptial agreements compared to couples who don't have such agreements. My google-fu is failing me – I'm only turning up articles that say high divorces rates are reason to consider a prenup. But what I want is simple statistics: in marriages with prenups, this percentage get divorced; in marriages without prenups, this percentage get divorced. Stats for Canada or the US would be ideal. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.236.140 (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This article says, "There are no statistics on how many prenuptial agreements are written, probably because they do not need to be filed until they're enforced, attorneys say", so there may be no way to find what you're looking for. Even if such stats did exist, I imagine situations with prenups will generally have confounding factors (later marriage, wealth disparity, etc.). --Sean 18:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts Sean. I appreciate it. If anyone else does find the stats, please still do post here. One of the reasons people shy away from prenups is the feeling that to create one is to set oneself up for divorce. I hoped to find some hard data that speaks to this fear and whether it has any actual basis in experience. --User:67.22.236.140 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.107.246.140 (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know why my number has changed. I am the same person who wrote that. Also, how do you make the signing work? --User:67.22.236.140 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.107.246.140 (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.250.140 (talk)

To make a signature, just type "--~~~~", or press the button that looks like a writing pen. --Sean 20:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

And your IP address will change if you use a different machine, or connect through a different ISP; but if your ISP allocates IP addresses dynamically, it might change even though you are using the same computer in the same place. This is one of many reasons why registering an account is helpful. --ColinFine (talk) 08:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

is there a published account that Wikipedia *can't* work and will go down in flames?

I personally believe that Wikipedia can't possibly work as a concept (despite the fact that it does, at the moment), and that, therefore, it will go down in flames within ten years. Is there a published confirmation of my suspicion? Thank you. 84.153.188.184 (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Try googling for news article like this one. There are lots of them. -- kainaw™ 17:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Note, BTW, that the linked article was published on 5th December 2006 and claims that "Wikipedia will fail in four years, crushed under the weight of an automated assault by marketers and others seeking online traffic."

It appears we have a month left to live. Goodbye, cruel world. TomorrowTime (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Note a few things. 1. "Wikipedia" is not static. Certain aspects of it are likely to be consistent, but, as has been demonstrated over the last few years, some aspects are more fluid than one might have guessed. New tools for fighting vandalism, automated entries, spam, and so on, are created and used and implemented all of the time. Some aspects of its much-vaunted "openness" have been rescinded over time. So any prediction of the future operation based on the status quo might be woefully wrong for a number of reasons, especially since the "problems" are generally incremental, and there are a lot of technically clever people contributing to Wikipedia who are probably willing to help solve them. 2. You're not going to be able to "confirm" your suspicion without it actually happening in this case. Which means that you're going to have to wait in 10 years and see where we all are then. Might be true, might not. But there's no article that can "prove" this to be the case, any more than they can "prove" that in 10 years we'll all be wearing underpants on our head. There might be suggestive trends, but there's no real confirmation there, unless you are just looking for "confirmation" that someone else out there feels the same way you do. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also note that even if Wikipedia were to collapse in ten years, it's licence allows anyone else to publish an archive of the encyclopedia or use all of the content that we have made to start a new encyclopedia with different editing rules. So, as long as anyone has an archive copy of Wikipedia, our work-to-date can't be undone by mass-vandalism or even the server being shut down. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"It turns out that the people who believe in truth and objectivity are at least as numerous as all the crazies, pranksters and time-wasters, and they are often considerably more tenacious, ruthless and monomaniacal. On Wikipedia, it’s the good guys who will hunt you down," observes David Runciman, Cambridge University, reviewing Andrew Lih, The Wikipedia Revolution; his is the most sensible description of Wikipedia ever: read it.--Wetman (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your suspicion, as stated, contains a paradox, so nothing could possibly confirm it. No evidence could ever make a proposition including "Wikipedia can't possibly work as a concept ... despite the fact that it does" true. --Sean 20:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like the zeroth law of Wikipedia - "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work." Incidentally, does anyone know who first came up with that quote? I'm sure it's been discussed before, but can't find it now. the wub "?!" 23:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has "gone down in flames." In fact it is continuously "going down in flames." Wikipedia is a dynamic entity. It is metamorphosing daily. That is actually a plus. A person reading Wikipedia only needs look at the History of the article and the Talk page as well as the History of the Talk page (plus archives—whew!) to understand a lot more about a topic than a "static" encyclopedia article can give you. The repository that Wikipedia is will continue for the foreseeable future. Its demise is based on thinking of it as an online Encyclopædia Britannica. It can fail in some ways as a replacement for Encyclopædia Britannica but still be very valuable. Bus stop (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Everything ends in one way or another. Will wikipedia still be here for the remainder of our lifetimes, or our childrens? It might do. What's certain is that something will come along one day to make it redundant and old fashioned. As of now, Wikipedia is making a good job of creating an encyclopedia Jack forbes (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

One thing about Wikipedia is that (depending on your perspective) it is either stabilizing or stagnating in recent years. See Wikipedia:VPM#Wikipedia_editing_stats_over_time for the most recent analysis to show this. In several major metrics, from new users, to new administrators, to number of edits per day, to number of new articles, Wikipedia reached a plateau sometime around 2007 and has showed much slower growth since then. Depending on your perspective, this either means that a) Wikipedia has reached a mature phase, and no one expected it to maintain the astronomical growth it showed in the early years, and that this is a healthy thing or b) Wikipedia is being crushed by its own weight, and its entrenched culture is driving away old contributors and keeping out new ones, which explains the decline in production. You will likely find an equal number of people who ascribe to each perspective. I personally hold mostly to perspective A), but then again I'm still here. If you ask people who have left Wikipedia, they will likely tell you more about perspective B. In reality, it is such a huge community, you will get a wide range of opinions on what is really going on. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle, as it always is. --Jayron32 04:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Or it could be that we are running out of Japanese train stations and US elementary schools to write about. Googlemeister (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a fait accompli. Even if it froze now and was developed no further, it would still be a much better encyclopaedia than all rivals. The only way it could fail would be if every copy of it was erased. 92.15.10.141 (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely true. If the community spirit that built Wikipedia turned out to be a fad that faded away, we'd just say "Well, lucky thing that the good feelings lasted long enough to make an awesome encyclopedia.", Restore from an old, known-good database dump, and lock the database.

If you're worried about a sudden catastrophe (Perhaps you believe WP will literally go down in flames.), you could use the Wikipedia:Database_download feature to get your copy of the database today. APL (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that a successful libel lawsuit for millions might give some irate article subject ownership of the servers and the name. The Saturday Evening Post, a well known US magazine, was shut down when it lost a libel suit in the 1960's. It was gratifying when someone pointed out that the articles would still be available for anyone to copy in such an event, so it could be open for business the next week under a new name. One failure mode would be a loss of interest by vandal fighters and administrators, leaving many articles in possession of propagandists, advertisers, promoters, loons, hoaxers, rabid nationalists, racists, and vandals. It might be indistinguishable from Uncyclopedia with the accuracy and credibility of any wall covered with graffiti or any extremist blog. All that gives it value is the hard work of thousands who create and improve articles and remove point of view edits and vanispamcruftisements, while requiring civility among contributors. Edison (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

November 5

cal/osha

where can i find the cal/osha law online? is there a checklist of everything that a business can do wrong online somehwere? what are the most common mistakes employers make i.e. missing osha posters? is there a consumer website that covers these issues? a law firm that has a inspection list that you can flip through? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanetwork (talk • contribs) 00:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

California's Occupational Safety program is described here. Laws requiring employers to provide a safe workplace for their employees can be more constructively thought of as things to do right. You can find the most frequently cited violations as listed and also by an employer's Standard Industrial Code here. One resource seems to be the Cal/OSHA Consultation Service, state program consultants who appear to work with various employers to improve the workplace safety and health conditions for employees.--Romantic Mollusk (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Le Pont de l'Anglois

Hi I believe I recently acquired the original water color of this painting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vincent_Willem_van_Gogh_070.jpg in a charity shop in the USA, from your web site it says it was last known to be in a private collection in Berlin, Germany, but it does not specify when ? or with whom ? so it really could be anywhere, hopefully with me, can you supply any further information which may help me get my painting authenticated, I will gladly send you photo's of my painting if you request them, please let me know, thanks. Yours faithfully Benedict McGowan —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenM66 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Frank Elgar's Van Gogh: a study of his life and work (1966) says it was then in a private collection in Berlin. Other sources may suggest it was acquired by the Wildenstein collection (see our article on Daniel Wildenstein). If you think your water-colour could be the real thing, I should take it to a major auction house. They will be able to access someone with the expertise needed. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Art students, hobbyists and forgers love to paint copies of famous works of art. Could your acquisition possibly be such a copy? Deepest congratulations if it is. If it is not, then I hope you paid an amount appropriate for a nice copy to decorate your wall with. Edison (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist church

how does westboro baptist church get the money to pay for their many protests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.180.19 (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, they're a church, so I don't know why they wouldn't get it from their parishioners and others who agree with what they do. Besides, protests are fairly cheap. Much of it is volunteer driven, after all it doesn't cost anything to stand on a street corner. And the signs are likely made at home or by businesses who either support what they do or don't turn away jobs based on political or religious reasons. Dismas|^(talk) 14:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Their expenses are not limited to the cost of their "God Hates Fags" signs. The Phelpses & Co. travel extensively and stage dozens of protests every year--their travel budget cannot be insubstantial. If you go to their website, they claim they do not accept donations, and, as AnonMoos points out, they probably don't make much money via the traditional collection plate either. Besides pointing this out, I don't have an answer to the OP's question.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

They're really not structured as an ordinary "church"; the majority of members have a family relationship with the original founder and live in closely neighboring houses in the same neighborhood in Topeka, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have read several articles (which I cannot myself corroborate) suggesting that they (several of whom are qualified lawyers) live mainly off the legal damages they are awarded in court cases after they, by behaving provocatively but remaining within the strict letter of the law, have successfully provoked others into violating their legal rights. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I've also heard this, but the one time I tried to track down good sources I was rather frustrated in the attempt. (This is mostly a matter of picking search terms for a quick web search; proper scholarship might dig them out...) Wnt (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's true... for those who haven't been disbarred for gross misconduct already, which is at least two of them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Coin or Fiddle (Antonín Dvořák)

The question: What's the original title of the work Coin or Fiddle by Antonín Dvořák and when was it published? Two top-ranking Slovene ballet dancers were awarded the highest national prize (the Prešeren Award) for the ballet choreography Coin or Fiddle (Slovene: Cekin ali gosli) in 1949. Google offers only one result. ([3]). Thanks a lot. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

why is an idea a deeply worthless thing?

Can someone explain why my ideas are deeply worthless things, and that I need to do something stupid, rather than capitalize on them? Thank you. 84.153.205.142 (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Because everyone has lots of of them. APL (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Supply and demand. Assume you need 1 idea. Given 10 people, you will get 100 or more ideas. The value of the ideas is very small. What is valuable is implementation of the ideas. Assume you need 1 implementation. Given 10 people, you will be very lucky to get 1 implementation that succeeds. So, to capitalize on your ideas, you must pick one idea and put your effort into implementing the idea yourself. A common failure is to assume that someone else will be happy to implement your idea. Why? Everyone else has ideas of their own. It is up to you to implement your own idea and prove that it is a good idea. -- kainaw™ 13:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This is really not anything we can answer on the Ref Desk, because we don't know whether your ideas are good or just worthless — what you are being told might be eminently practical, or it might be misleading. But it does bring to mind one of my favorite quotes, attributed to Linus Pauling: "If you want to have good ideas you must have many ideas. Most of them will be wrong, and what you have to learn is which ones to throw away." --Mr.98 (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Even a good idea is near worthless on it's own. No one will buy an idea off you on its own.

An invention might be very valuable, but it takes a tremendous amount of effort, and often money, to get from an idea to an invention. (Other things that come out of ideas that are valuable : Books, Movies, Political movements, works of art, scientific discoveries, religions, and more. All require effort before they become valuable.) APL (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

An idea is both a deeply worthless thing and the most valuable thing. Now I will take my philosopher's cap off and swab the deck, matey. Bus stop (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I almost deleted this question for not being "answerable" or "serious" or whatever the applicable problem with it might be. But, since others have already partaken, I might as well bite, too.

So, clarification please: what makes you ask whether you "need to do something stupid"? Why would that necessarily be "rather than" capitalizing on your ideas? If your ideas truly are deeply worthless, then that is most likely why you cannot capitalize on them. But: not being able to capitalize on them does not in itself prove that they are deeply worthless. Assuming they are, though, per your question, there is a wide variety of reasons as to why that might be. Mental illness could be one reason (certainly, at least, that you are perceiving them to be worthless), and if so there may be medication you could take to help with that! If you think that may be it, you should consult with a medical doctor or clinical psychologist. Otherwise, perhaps some of the responses above will help. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(Notice that this question is asked by the same IP who asked about finding investors that would be interested in investing after hearing "A few words" about his idea. That gives a hint to the sort of "worthlessness" he's thinking of. ) APL (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ideas are not necessarily worthless, if they are combined in such a way as to represent a convincing plan for generating income. For example, a product innovation that meets an unfulfilled market need, combined with a plan for producing this innovation cost-effectively, could well be worth a great deal. The usual way to turn ideas into revenue is to create a solid business plan and market it to investors. Investors usually need more than "a few words" to make an investment, though a few well-chosen words from the right person might interest them enough to take a look at the business plan. Your plan will be more plausible if you can demonstrate a record of experience in the field of the innovation, which would help to create confidence that you know what you are doing. Marco polo (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Einstein's idea of Special relativity is not worthless. 92.15.2.255 (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It depends. Einstein's theories are of little or no practical use to the average citizen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

They sure were to Einstein (about 120,000 kronor worth). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Einstein's idea of special relativity would have been worthless if he didn't put effort into turning it into a viable explanation for what other scientists were seeing in experiments. The idea was worthless. The effort is where the worth was created. -- kainaw™ 23:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Parkinson's Law of Triviality. Everyone has ideas about simple stuff that doesn't require expertise. You are expressing ideas about simple stuff, or your ideas are not original when compared to other ideas that other persons have, or you don't have any special characteristic that allows you to have interesting ideas about the topic (you don't have expertise, the right kind of thinking, fame of having good ideas previously on that topic, no superficial additions that could make you look more intelligent or more expert like a beard and pipe, etc) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Darn this infernal machine!

I came across this article in my local Vermont paper yesterday and it got me wondering, what is an "infernal machine" according to Massachusetts law?

Note: I am not seeking legal advice. I don't live in Massachusetts, I live in Vermont as my user page has said for years. I am not in my 70s. This is a legal curiosity only. If I happen to lose a game of trivial pursuit or a pub quiz based on the information given to me here, I swear not to hold Wikipedia, its owners, or editors libel for my losses. I may, though I am not promising, reward Wikimedia financially if there happen to be any financial gains from the knowledge gained in receiving an informative response for the question I have posted here today. Dismas|^(talk) 14:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's a quaint equivalent of "bomb." Acroterion _(talk) 14:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

We have a stub on infernal machines. DuncanHill (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• This link gives the definition in the Massachusetts Code as follows: The term “infernal machine”, as used in this section, shall include any device for endangering life or doing unusual damage to property, or both, by fire or, explosion, whether or not contrived to ignite or explode automatically and whether or not disguised so as to appear harmless. DuncanHill (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And thus we see the major difference between Vermont's legal situation and much of the rest of the Northeast, with its very restrictive anti-gun laws. As far as your question — Chapter 266, §102a of the Massachusetts General Laws defines an infernal machine. You'll notice that the wording was removed from the law in July, but I'd be very surprised if there were any other definition in the General Laws. Nyttend (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Alas, it appears the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has decided to do away with their charmingly antiquated terminology, and rename an "infernal machine" as "an explosive or a destructive or incendiary device or substance", which is much less jolly as effective from 15th July 2010. DuncanHill (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting! Thanks! I should have known to check for an article first. Dismas|^(talk) 15:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Inferno, infernal, and inferior all refer to things that are "below", with the term "infernal" literally meaning "hell-like", i.e. something that burns. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Old Testament believers

Is there a title for people who accept only the Old Testament as the word of God, and reject the Torah, New Testament, Books of Mormon etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.240.226 (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Torah and the Old Testament overlap. If one rejected the Torah—wouldn't one be rejecting the Old Testament? Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think they might mean reject the Talmud but I don't know anyone that accepts only the Torah. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of the overlap. So the question should be, "what do you call someone who accepts only the Old Testament and no other 'holy books' as the word of God and sole source of religious/spiritual authority?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.240.226 (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I would call such a person a human being. (Just being funny.) Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

A Karaite. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ethiopian Jews were uninfluenced by Mishnaic/Talmudic writings... AnonMoos (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Not quite the right answer, but Samaritans have their own version of the Pentateuch. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hang on - I think Jews in general accept only the Torah (i.e. the first five books of Tanach (roughly the "Old Testament") as the word of God. The other parts of Tanach and other writings such as Talmud are studied and revered by most sects, but are regarded as human not divine. --ColinFine (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Fornication in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Chapter 272, Section 18 of the Massachusetts General Laws prohibits fornication, under penalty of three months or $30. What do they mean by fornication? It's not adultery, as that is punishable under another section, as are unnatural and lascivious acts, the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, and incest. DuncanHill (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Extramarital sex needn't constitute adultery (if neither partner is married, for example). Along this line, it often signifies premarital sex. See also article on fornication. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read that article, but it isn't specific as to what fornication means in Massachusetts law. DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

A Compendium and Digest of the Laws of Massachusetts (William Charles White, Munroe, Francis, and Parker, 1810, p634) defines it as "the act of incontinency between single persons; for if either party be married, it is adultery." ---Sluzzelin talk 15:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope "incontinence" had a different meaning to the one used now!! "Fetch the rubber sheets nurse!" Alansplodge (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating. Living in Massachusetts, I had no idea before I got married that I was engaging in criminal acts! I don't think this law is enforced much. Marco polo (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, neither is it "made the subject of prosecution" nor is its constitutionality seen as watertight "at least as applied to the private, consensual conduct of persons over the age of consent."". ---Sluzzelin talk 16:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Presumably any trial would end in the law being invalidated based on the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, though not all the Justices who voted with the majority agreed with Kennedy's rationale. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. DuncanHill (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Massachusetts certainly isn't the only state with laws that are constitutionally invalid but yet remain on the books. Nebraska (among many others) has a Flag burning law on the books, and many states also have old common law torts and sometimes crimes on the books (the common law tort of seduction is fun). Most states also criminalize adultery although the constitutionality of that is questionable (Lawrence doesn't speak to this, but the argument's been made both ways). Finally, it's ironic that Massachusetts still has this law on the books; contrast that to the political tenor of the State's recent court headlines. Shadowjams (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This article might be of interest: Elizabeth Fones.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Shadowjams, I'll do you one better; in Virginia, any house with six or more women with different surnames is automatically considered a brothel. My cousin is at George Mason, and her sorority can't get a house because of this law. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That is good, and I've heard similar things before. But I'll raise you again. Compare 18 U.S.C. § 700 to Texas v. Johnson. Shadowjams (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Damn, that is good. The only one I can think of on quite that level is a Montana law decreeing that seven or more Indians is considered a tribe, and may be shot at. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Tantalizing... if you find that cite I'll concede defeat! Shadowjams (talk) 06:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems they finally repealed that one... but according to this, they still have a law in force barring married women from fishing on Sundays, and umarried women from fishing at all. They also seem to have another one stating that the missionary position is the only legal way to have sex (not quite sure how they ever planned to enforce that...). But I didn't realize some states still had their flag-burning laws on the books; remind me not to go there!! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC) (Just in case you thought the US was the only country with this problem, if you want an international example, Cambodia has a law forbidding water guns at festivals.)

Dumb laws used to have a sizeable collection of non-hoax dumb laws, but someone's pruned it right back. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Secret Police in Eastern Europe, after 89-91

Dear Wikipedians, I am a student of the history of Central and Eastern Europe, ca '45-91. I was wondering if any of you could help me to a question that has me puzzled: What happened to members of the security forces/secret police (securitat, Stasi, etc) in the different CE European countries after the war? (EDIT: Not after the war, but after the fall of the communist rules!)

The answers may exist in the different articles, but don't seem to be easy to find. I imagine that, while for instance Hungary might have had a process where it cleared up its ties with its organizations (did it?), Albania might still retain some of the same members and politicians high in the political system.

Does there exist a summary anyone of you can give me on this matter? I would be deeply obliged. Thank you in advance! 88.90.16.74 (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The situation varied from country to country, but in most countries, the former "security" personnel were dismissed and forced to find new livelihoods or else lived on state welfare benefits. In some countries, individual members of the secret police, such as Erich Mielke were prosecuted for crimes they committed in their former jobs. Marco polo (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The article you link states that Mielke was prosecuted (symbolically?) on the murder of the police officers before the second world war--not at all about his involvement with the security forces. This in itself begs the question I just asked, about how involvement with the security police was handled after the fall of communist rule in these lands.88.90.16.74 (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

OP: The confusion probably stems from the way you worded your question: "What happened to members of the security forces/secret police (securitat, Stasi, etc) in the different CE European countries after the war?". Since there was no war in most Eastern European countries following the fall of the Soviet bloc, most people would think that you asked what happened after the Second World War (which was the only war that affected most of the Soviet bloc countries). --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! That was an awkward mistake to make. I've added an edit tag up there. 88.90.16.74 (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Many of them just kept right on working for the new regimes. The new governments still needed people with highly-specialized training, and this isn't something you can pick up just anywhere. In Dealing with the Communist Past: Central and Eastern Experiences after 1990, it states "Dealing with former high-level communists and security apparatuses were clearly among the central tasks facing governments immediately after communism disintegrated in much of Central and Eastern Europe. ...in all countries, the extent of decommunisation was quite limited in nature." This CIA document, Intelligence Reform in Europe's Emerging Democracies, also mentions the problem of "legacy intelligence services" and how "The states that negotiated their revolutions--Hungary, Poland, and, initially, Czechoslovakia--'grandfathered in' substantial numbers of personnel from the former regimes." The more enterprising probably used their influence and knowledge to enrich themselves, particularly in Russia. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

See also Lustration and Decommunisation Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Skinner v Freud

hey all. I'm starting to study psychology, and in class we're talking about the two most influential psychologists, BF Skinner and Sigmund Freud. Whil we're not actually going to read them in class until Psych II, i plan to supplement our discussion by actually reading Freud's and Skinner's work. Which should I read first? That is, how do Freud and Skinner compare not in terms of content, but in terms of how easy their arguments are to follow, how consistent they are with their content, how well they support their theories, how organized their writing is, and really how much they "make sense"? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Skinner comes later, and his Behaviorism is, in part, a response to Freud's introspective theories, so it would make sense to read Freud first, to understand exactly what Skinner was objecting to... --Jayron32 21:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Freud's Introductory Lessons on Psychoanalysis are eminently worth reading. (No comment on Skinner – ptah! ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The theories of both have fairly major problems from the modern point of view (and neither provided a solid foundation for later developments in the same way that Darwin's theories did for evolution, etc.), so I'm not all that sure what the point of going into great historical detail in an introductory survey course would be. AnonMoos (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Heck, why not just recommend that the OP change majors? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Would I recommend that someone studying astronomy change majors because the first several thousand years of astronomical work were carried out under mistaken views of the basic relationship between the sun and the earth, and often mainly for astrological purposes? No. But I would recommend that an introductory survey course on astronomy not go into great detail on the history of Babylonian astrology... AnonMoos (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The OP did not ask for advice about whether to read Skinner and Freud, but what to read, and which of them is more readable. I think the question indicates that the OP is most likely an excellent student, and ought to be encouraged, especially here. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

wikidao, you are risking me calling you bad names. Do not disparage the highest of all philosophies because you worship the lowest common denominator of intellect... so there, hah!

Not sure what you may mean. I have a philosophical dislike for some Skinnerian assumptions, but respect the work, as far as it goes and for what it's worth. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Read Freud first, because you will not understand Skinner's complain about psychology unless you understand Freud. After you read Skinner, read G.H. Mead. Freud developed a (rather questionable) clinical approach to the human psyche based on (what he assumed to be) the unseen internal processes of the human mind. Skinner objected to the clinical approach as a theoretical model (and in the process, rejected all unseen processes as irrelevant), leading him to a very mechanistic view of the mind. Both Freud and Skinner are still used in limited contexts, and both have suffered some fairly heavy (and largely well-deserved) criticism. --Ludwigs2 05:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to that, Skinner's work on behaviourism is the direct ancestor of some popular modern psychological theories and therapies such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. Whereas I can't trace a modern therapy directly back to Freud - anyone?--TammyMoet (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

All psychotherapy comes from Freud, Tammy. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think TammyMoet is either saying that psychotherapy is not a "modern therapy" or that most therapeutic versions are pretty distanced from Freud (e.g. via Jung or what have you). But there definitely are practicing Freudian psychotherapists, either way. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

CBT is a psychotherapy, one of many, and owes its general existence to Freud, who "invented" modern psychotherapy. Its specifics are heavily influenced by Skinnerian Behaviour Therapy, it's true. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Funny, Freud isn't mentioned in its article at all. Probably because his influence is pretty minor. I mean, OK, all forms of the modern "talking cure" derive in some way from Freud starting the trend, but that doesn't actually mean that Freud's theories have anything interesting to do with them. Reading over CBT, I see absolutely no Freudian influence whatsoever in its therapeutic approach or theorizations, other than the fact that it is a form of therapy that often involves talking to people. You can say, "all physics goes back to Aristotle," but that doesn't actually tell you very much about physics, and obscures some pretty big changes that have happened. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think "Attributing Newtonian physics to Newton does no disservice to Watt" would be a better analogy (if one wanted to be generous to Skinner ;), and optimistic about CBT's lasting impact on psychotherapy as a whole) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

But attributing Einsteinian physics to Newton is incorrect. Do you see my point? --Mr.98 (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

We are still in a "classical" realm of psychology, especially clinical psychology. There has been no revolution comparable either to relativity or quantum mechanics in (clinical) psychology after Freud. (And Skinner, in any case, was no Einstein -- whereas Freud is a comparable historical figure.) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

CBT was invented specifically as a complement/alternate to psychoanalysis. If I remember the rationalization correctly, behavioral therapy was losing steam in the discipline (pure behavioral therapy was never particularly effective), and therapists wanted to go back towards some type of cognitive therapy, but they wanted to avoid depth psychology (both because it was theoretically suspect and because involved years-long analysis, which was not practical for most patients or most problems). Beck designed CBT as brief therapy: it took the basic Freudian talk-therapy model modified it by (1) introducing directed therapist interventions (Freud's model asked the therapist to be entirely passive except as a guide), and (2) setting aside deep analysis in preference to an assortment of cognitive assertions (on the theory that for relatively minor problems conscious changes belief structures would resolve short-term problems and eventually percolate down to lower levels of the unconscious without any direct effort). --Ludwigs2 21:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If for some reason you are really going to read Skinner, you might also want to check out Chomsky's "A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior".

No, it's the other way round. Skinner wins :-) --Radh (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

lol - the only way Skinner's research ever got measurable results was by reducing the body weight of the rodent test populations by 25%-33% and then making food contingent on learning. If I starved you down by 45-60 lbs and then told you to learn a maze in order to get a cheeseburger, how fast and thoroughly do you think you'd get that maze memorized? That's not to say that Skinner was entirely wrong, mind you, but his theory was tremendously myopic. --Ludwigs2 21:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what college you attended, or whether you studied psychology, or took a course in which you had to do operant conditioning, but at my college pigeons prepped for operant conditioning were food deprived down to perhaps 90% of free feeding weight. This is comparable to what they would weigh in the wild, where food is not always right there in front of them and where they got exercise rather than being in a little wire and plastic cage. If they were starved down 33%, they were apt to refuse food and die thereafter, rather than being super motivated and easily trainable. Rats were water deprived for 24 hours. Edison (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

For a real-world example of the impact of behaviorism, read Mariette Hartley's autobiography. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Tell it in Gath" (Biblical reference)

I have come across a number of books entitled Tell it in Gath [4] [5] but am unsure of what the precise reference is and what it means; it seems to be something to do with Samuel II 1 and/or Micah 1 – can anyone help? :) ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 22:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The quote is actually "tell it not in Gath...lest the Philistines rejoice" (KJV 2 Samuel 1:20). It appears in the original negative form in several Charlotte Bronte novels... AnonMoos (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

But it means...? ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 23:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What else do you need to know other than that the Philistines were the traditional enemies of the Israelites during that period? AnonMoos (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Like what/where is Gath? ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 23:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Gath was a Philistine city. You can read more about it at the linked article, but the only thing that's important in this context is that it's a Philistine city. In the original Bible verse, it's paired with Ashkelon, which was also a Philistine city. AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Perhaps why one must not tell it in Gath, and why if "it" was told in Gath, would the Philistines rejoice? And lastly, what is "it"? --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There appear to have been several Gaths, according to our article Gath (city). DuncanHill (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The phrase could have several exact meanings depending on the context -- TT, are you curious about a specific use of the phrase? Consider that Gath is the place of origin of a great but famously defeated champion (Goliath); what would be the significance of telling something there? Our article on Goliath makes the interesting point that the David-Goliath conflict was later framed as a Church vs. Satan one; there's lots of ways you could go with this. Antandrus (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Anybody who actually bothered to read the second half of II Samuel chapter 1, in combination with a little fairly-easily acquired background knowledge, could tell what it meant without much need for speculation. I'm kind of tired of spoon-feeding in mini-teaspoon sized doses. AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a qualification in English Literature, and I am a paid teacher of Hebrew & Jewish Studies, extremely familiar with the Old Testament, as my userpage notes. However, clearly not everybody is perfect in their knowledge and their ability to make inferences; that is what the RefDesk is for. Sorry if it offends you. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 09:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Then don't. You don't have to post here. DuncanHill (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to post relevant factual information or participate in intelligent discussions; what can annoying is when people seem to consider it too much effort to make fairly obvious inferences, or do a simple search for a specific word in Wikipedia. AnonMoos (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This place is maintained by volunteers who enjoys knowledge, both in the giving of it and acquiring it. And this is without regard for the level of learning of the questioner, as long as the questions are posed in good faith. If it ever feels like a burden to answer questions, I would seriously advice that you take a break from the ref desk for a while. At least just for as long as it takes to regain that sense of enjoyment in sharing knowledge just for the sake of it, even if it has to be spelled out (or "spoon-fed" as you seem to prefer). --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

In Samuel II 1:20, David, having just learned of the death of Saul, says:

"Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Ashkelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph."

And then I'm not entirely sure what is going on in Micah 1:10. But it seems to be an injunction against giving "aid and comfort" to one's enemies. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Verse 17 of (the previously linked) II Samuel tells us that this verse's context is a Dirge. There is some hint of a ruse by who is apparently Saul's armor-bearer. The amalekite tells David that he has put Saul to death because of Saul's request, apparently to gain David's favor. Being one of Jehovah's anointed servants, however, made this a serious crime and David had the amalekite put to death. Saul had actually killed himself. Saul did what was bad in Jehovah's eyes and most likely took on the practice of "honorable" suicide from the Philistines. The later part of I Samuel in chapter 31 (a page before the account in question) tells that the Philistines already knew about Saul's death and took their bodies and "fastened [them] on the wall (1 Samuel 31:10)," quite a gruesome picture. Later on in the days of David the bloodguilt incurred by Saul was washed clean by the slaying of some of his descendents (2 Samuel 21:1-9). I hope this enlightens you as to the content of Samuel's history books he wrote (n.b. Gad and Nathan also contributed to the books of Samuel). schyler (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for this – so then the context of those books entitled Tell it in Gath would be, essentially, "Publish and be damned," then? ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 09:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You are welcome. By the way, I forgot to cite one of my references. I already cited I and II Samuel, but I also read from Insight on The Scriptures to answer this question. It is a pleasure to help a seeker of knowledge!
    
    As for your secondary question to have told it in Gath would be like not reading The writing on the wall or not telling people about The Kingdom of Heaven; for lack of a better term, blasphemy, but in a song! :) 71.21.143.33 (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)(schyler IP)

The first book you list, TreasuryTag, Tell it in Gath by Joseph Osgood, 1918, seems to be a defense of Southern US literature in the face of "The Tradition of New England Ascendancy" (the title of the first chapter). Given the feelings that some Southern writers have had about that ascendancy in cultural matters, I expect that the fact of publishing the book at all at the time was considered "telling it in Gath" by the author in this case (but suggests that he had something to say in the book that was a "cause of woe" to disenfranchised Southern writers, so may have been a unintentional misuse of the phrase).

I'm not entirely sure though what might be meant by the phrase in the second book you list, Tell it in Gath:British Jewry and Clause 43, the Inside Story. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The second book is mentioned in this pdf, search it for clause. "Clause 43" appears to be something to do with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and the impossibility of getting orthodox, reform, liberal and progressive congregations to agree on anything whatsoever. DuncanHill (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Micah reference

Please read the second half of Micah 1 for some context: this whole portion appears to be a collection of ironic puns. Footnotes in my NIV say that "Gath" sounds somewhat like "tell" (i.e. "Tell it not in Tell"), and the further verses have similar parallels, such as "Those who live in Zaanan will not come out" in verse 11, with a footnote of "Zaanan sounds like the Hebrew for come out". Although such comments for the community names aren't given by the NJPS Tanakh, it too says that this section is full of puns. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

November 6

Pope Paul VI's views on feminism

What were they? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

His were most likely based on the history of Women in the Bible as well as the large contribution of Women in Christianity. 71.21.143.33 (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)(schyler IP)

What kind of feminism? New feminism, difference feminism, pro-life feminism? Lots of types of feminism are embraced by Catholics, but probably not the kind that immediately springs to mind when we think of "feminism". Paul VI was the man behind Humanae Vitae, which is either pro- or anti-feminist, depending on what you think feminism is. (He was also an influence on John Paul II, who was also either pro- or anti-feminist, depending on where you stand.) Adam Bishop (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I mean specifically new feminism. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think he specifically referred to it, but anyway, new feminism (in the Catholic sense) is pretty much based on Humanae Vitae and JPII's writings. So, he probably would have liked it a lot. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

He never criticized the movement at all? Never said anything negative about it? No pope ever did, for that matter? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the radical feminists of the 60 and 70s. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well, even when the church is at its most modern it is still pretty anti-modern, going back at least to Leo XIII in the nineteenth century, so you can be pretty sure that Paul VI wasn't fond of those kinds of feminists. I don't know if he specifically said anything about them, but all of his writings are on the Vatican website (although not always in English, which doesn't help). Adam Bishop (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Oddly, every time an encyclical or bull on the Vatican website uses the word "times", it seems to be autocorrected to "Times New Roman". It makes me extremely twitchy, and I know not everything is like Wikipedia, but I can't edit it and can't find a way to tell someone who could change it and ARGH. It's a bizarre error, consistent throughout all the documents as far as I can tell. Does anyone know how to let them know? 86.166.42.171 (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's really strange. I'm sure they'd want to know. Not sure where you've been seeing that exactly, but the Vatican.va site suggests they do have people to contact, but then doesn't provide any links to those people. The Vaticanstate.va website has this contact page; they might be able to direct your feedback to the right people at their sister site. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's bizarre, but maybe it is your computer, because that doesn't happen for me. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? A quick search for "Times New Roman" and vatican comes up with [6] [7] [8] and others. These show in the Google search result and Google cache and also the webcite archives [9] [10] [11] that I just took so I don't believe it's anything on my side. We weren't of course the first people to notice, [12] which suggest it isn't every instance, only those that are writings from Pope Pius XII. Nil Einne (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The "Times New Roman" mystery

Those are interesting links, Nil. It does really seem to be a problem, and it's amazing that it's still a problem if others have already noticed it and talked about it on the internet. From your link to the Philippine Daily Enquirer:

'I mentioned this to a colleague whose satirical wit is one of the delights of my cloistered life at the John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues. He suggested that it was a code “to activate all the ultra-conservative Catholic sleeper cells waiting for the call to vanquish the liberal infidels.” He explained the code thus: “Times (the end times are near); New Roman (time to establish a New Rome!).”'

Has anyone actually tried making contact with anyone at vatican.va yet? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I have sent email about this matter to the webmaster of my local Archdiocese. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I have received email back: they're on it now. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

November 7

US law protecting the Swiss arms

Why does US law provide special protection for the arms of the Swiss Confederation (US Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 3, Section 78)? DuncanHill (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The footnote at this copy of the statute (which most of you probably can't see) seems to imply that it's been around since 1940 (or maybe 1936; it's hard to tell). The only thing I can think of is the similarity to the Red Cross, which is protected by section 706 (and more recently, 706a). Buddy431 (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Chapter 33 seems to be primarily about preventing someone passing themselves off as an official of any of various sorts. Keep in mind that the Swiss are always neutral and commonly used as intermediaries between states that have broken diplomatic ties. We don't want some corporation adopting the Swiss flag as a logo and then trying to pass itself off as a neutral party in order to gain some kind of advantage over their competitors. That would (a) be unfair, and (b) damage the credibility of the Swiss as neutrals. --Ludwigs2 08:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the last paragraph in the US Code excludes the Swiss knifes. Is that right?--Quest09 (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what was in their heads when they debated the law. I suspect the idea was to not inconvenience established companies in general without need. If I'm correct in thinking that the law is intended to prevent deceptive practices, then a company with a long-standing usage of the arms as part of their trademark could not reasonably or easily pass itself off anew as having some sort of diplomatic status, and so it would be a non-issue. --Ludwigs2 18:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This law was based on an older law enacted by the 74th Congress on June 20, 1936 "To prohibit the commercial use of the coat of arms of the Swiss Confederation pursuant to the obligation of the Government of the United States under article 28 of the Red Cross Convention signed at Geneva July 27, 1929." (74 P.L. 729; 74 Cong. Ch. 635; 49 Stat. 1557). You can read article 28 by following the link at Third Geneva Convention. That article has to do with the disposition of profits associated with a canteen (place) for prisoners of war. We can only speculate what Congress was thinking in limiting the use of the coat of arms in light of this obligation. To find out for sure, we would have to go to the legislative history for 1936 leading up to this bill. I'm not certain what sort of law libraries would have that, but one would exist in Washington DC. Gx872op (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the bill was discussed in the Congressional Record. I'm guessing a large college library or regional government depository library would have Congressional Records going back that far. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Charles E. Whitmeyer

I came across the article for Charles E. Whitmeyer and am looking for any sources that can confirm his existence and exploits. Particularly of concern are the claims that he was illiterate, invented the child leash and used moonshine as an embalming fluid. A search for the only reference used in the article only brings up Wikipedia and its mirrors. Gobonobo ^{T C} 01:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There is at least one book reference, cited in the article. I can't find anything online, but that doesn't mean that he didn't exist, or isn't notable. He very well could be. I have done some research for Wikipedia before on long deceased North Carolinians; next time I am at the Library I can look him up. --Jayron32 03:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Child leashes" have existed for many centuries, called leading strings... AnonMoos (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Identify this novel

I remember reading a novel back in grade 6 where the main character is named "Alex" and the story is set in the Soviet Union, with some of Alex's family members being arrested by Soviet authorities. What was this novel titled? 66.212.129.130 (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can answer your question, but if it was anything like Red Scarf Girl, which I read in the 7th grade, it is all a bunch of propaganda. schyler (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear what you mean by that, schyler. Sure, Americans love their propaganda re: communism and I have no doubt this book has its own share of it as well, but the book reviews I read on Amazon about this book were basically of two sorts: "this book is great for civics class, I use it all the time with my pupils" and "gawd, this book is so boring, our teacher makes us read it and I haet it, and there's not even a red scarf in it, duh." TomorrowTime (talk) 09:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, in reality, Stalinist Russia and Maoist China were great places to live. If your hierarchy of needs was very short. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it was The Wild Children by Felice Holman. Gobonobo ^{T C} 09:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing Nietzsche

Various websites credit Friedrich Nietzsche with the following quote:

Talking much about oneself can also be a means to conceal oneself.

Anyone know if this is legit and if so, the origin? 83.70.229.15 (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly legit, yes. It's ch. 4, §169 of his Beyond Good and Evil, which you can find at Wikisource. Antiquary (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

in this PDF what was the "December 25th incident"?

In this PDF: http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf

What is the mentioned "recent incident (on December 25th)" (near bottom of third page)? 84.153.207.135 (talk) 12:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The pdf twice caused Chrome to freeze, so I can't help. DuncanHill (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Duncan, for the conspiracist in me, will you write a disclosure of whether you have any interest in the matter? 84.153.212.109 (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a very interesting document, a "letter of concern" to the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology from some faculty members at UCSF, dated April 6, 2010. The passage in question is:

"Lastly, given the recent incident (on December 25th), how do we know whether the manufacturer or TSA, seeking higher resolution, will scan the groin area more slowly leading to a much higher total dose?"

Presumably, this is in reference to the Christmas Day bombing attempt in which the would-be bomber concealed explosives in his underwear. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternate history

Would it be an even remotely plausible PoD to have Mexico take back Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California during the 1930s when the American military was weakened by the Great Depression? --75.33.217.61 (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The article Plan de San Diego may be an interesting read to you. The Great Depression weakened the US economy in all sectors, including the military, but war (and especially invasion) has historically, in all nations, contributed to a sense of a collective "we can do it" spirit. I seriously doubt, even with the large Mexican-American population at the time, that Mexico would have been able to conquer these lands. Most Mexican-Americans' families at the time had fled to these areas because of the political unrest in their native country and were usually already second generation Americans; assimilation had begun. Some other articles you may wish to look at: History of Mexico#Part VI: The PRI and the Rise of Contemporary Mexico (1929-present) and Zimmermann Telegram. schyler (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's actually worse than just a "we can do it" spirit. Wars stimulate economies and do wonders for politics. Had the US gotten into a border war with Mexico at this point, they probably would have pulled out of the Great Depression faster and earlier than they otherwise did. As it happened, it took WWII to get the US out of it. We would have to be talking about very remote assets to imagine the US not deciding it was "worth" mobilization to reclaim them. Texas and California in particular were pretty valuable assets, though, and would be well-worth reclaiming. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Wars are best at stimulating economies when the stuff getting destroyed is not yours. WW2 was not very good for the French economy in the first half or the German economy in the second half. Googlemeister (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It really wouldn't matter how far away or useless it was. How important were the Falkland Islands? China and India fought repeatedly over mostly uninhabited and worthless land. The United States simply wouldn't stand for it because it would lose an enormous amount of prestige if it didn't do anything. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem very plausible to me, unless in connection with the Zimmermann Telegram and a WWI that turned out very differently... AnonMoos (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty hard to imagine. Mexico had trouble keeping itself intact. The Maximato was a time of great social and political tension in Mexico. The government had just acheived nominal control of most of the country after the Cristero War and the Escobar Rebellion, in which a third of the army deserted to Escobar's side. Hundreds of thousands of anti-government Cristeros became refugees in the US after the war. Mexico's economy also suffered during the depression and its military was poorly equipped even before then. It relied completely on American aid to equip the tiny air force which it used to great effect against Escobar's forces. They also only managed to raise 100,000 or so soldiers for the Cristero War which indicates they might have serious trouble raising a large invasion force. Mexico was also regarded its own military as immature and was in the midst of a major military reformation under Defence Secretary Joaquín Amaro. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Quote from Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz

I've been trying to find a source for this quote: can anyone help? Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 15:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The quote seems to be attributed more often to Solomon Schechter (see this example).--Cam (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

what is fat people's psychology?

Like, when I see them buy three donuts, why do they do it if they know it makes them fat? 84.153.212.109 (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

See obesity.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Under "causes" it doesn't list pyschology except to say "Certain physical and mental illnesses", meaning something more serious. I don't mean a mental illness, I mean the simple choice. If I, who weigh 160 pounds, and am not on a diet, know I don't need more than one donut, and so I don't buy one, why does someone weighing 300 who knows they don't need more than one donut, then buy three? Like, I don't understand this. Also, sometimes nobody on the train is eating, it might be a very dirty and disgusting metro that is totally unappetizing. Only one person will be eating, who is grossly overweight. What is the psychology behind eating at this time? I mean, if people who aren't working on losing weight are grossed out enough not to even consider eating (even if they have food), doesn't it follow that someone who is working on losing weight would definitely not be eating in that situation? But the observation is just the opposite: even from 80 people, they might be the only one eating in that situation. Or, while walking somewhere. Etc etc. So, what is the psychology behind it? I'm not talking about people with mental hindrances who don't realize that they should not eat 5 donuts if they are not trying to quickly gain weight (the only situation in which someone would eat 5 donuts, or an eating contest) -- I'm talking about people with a normal IQ who know this fact, but still do it? I've removed the ref desk alert after adding this clarification, hopefully you will now understand the exact perspective I have in asking this question. It is totally bizarre to me. It would be like if the only people building a house in this city this week are people who don't want a house. This doesn't make sense to me on pure utilitarian grounds, and so I would like a psychological explanation. Thank you. 84.153.212.109 (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Behavioral addiction might be one explanation. Very few people behave purely rationally or, despite what economists teach us, in ways that advance their self-interest, particularly when compulsions are involved. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

See also Food addiction. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Why does anyone buy doughnuts? The OP makes unwarranted assumptions: First, that someone buying three doughnuts is necessarily planning to eat them all, instead of, say, donating them to anorexic friends. Second, that fat people are unanimously resolved to become thin, and that they are therefore stupid or insane to eat pastries. In fact, many fat people don't consider weight loss an urgent priority, or consider it an impossibility, or don't want to lose weight, as scandalous as that might seem to a respectable conformist. Some of them don't even care what random strangers think. LANTZY^TALK 18:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about you or me, but the people weighing 300-500 pounds at five foot three. And the reason I know that they're eating all three donuts is I seen em! 84.153.212.109 (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It takes more than three donuts to get there... and, then, how do you know whom you were speaking to? East of Borschov 03:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no definitive or universal answer to this question. it may vary from biological consideration, to psychological, to cultural, to simple disagreement with your personal beliefs about what is attractive and appetizing. please do not remove alert templates; they serve a particular purpose. --Ludwigs2 18:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at Compulsive overeating. This is a tough question about a tough situation and there are millions being spent to try to figure it out. The people that compulsively overeat don't necessarily have good answers themselves, either. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Also see disinhibition, otherwise known as the "Oh, what the hell" phenomenon. An obese person may think that getting to a healthy weight is impossible, so why not enjoy the doughnuts? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

For a general description of why people do things that they *know* aren't in their best interests, see akrasia. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

What I'm talking about

It seems people are thinking I'm applying some particular idea of what is attractive! I'm not talking about debatable things, and I'm also not talking about "overeating" i.e. 12 or 24 donuts eaten on the spot! I mean 500 pound people, and three donuts when they could eat one. Not 12 or 24. 84.153.212.109 (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you find uninformative about the article I linked to already, Food addiction, and the other articles linked to by others above? And please do not troll the Ref desk. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

food addiction would be appropriate for someone buying two cartons of donuts. I'm talking about three donuts. I'm not trolling you guys, I want an actual answer, a real reference. The answer you're giving me, "Food addiction" is an inappropriate answer because everyone needs food, and 3 donuts is not out of the ordinary. It is just that the 500 pound guy should be buying 1, and not 3. What is his psychology? Note: is it an "addiction" if you have a glass of wine a week? Obviously not. But, if you have two glasses of wine instead of 1, you won't be a 500 pound guy, whereas if you eat three donuts, instead of one (same for everything) you will be. Obviously you don't want to be a 500-pound guy, and obviously you know that, although it is normal to eat 3 donuts, you should eat 1 in this case. Why do you still eat 3? What is the psychology behind that? Again: I'm not talking about addiction. I'm not takling about obsessive/compulsive behavior. I am simply talking about making a certain choice every time you buy a donut. Why? This is a perfectly reasonable question, and so far the answers have been totally unhelpful. 84.153.212.109 (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I gave you an actual answer. you assert "the 500 pound guy should be buying 1, and not 3" which is your own personal belief about his behavior. He may have a psychological urge he can't control, or he may have a biological issue he's dealing with, or he may just want to eat 3 doughnuts, in which case he should be buying 3, not 1.

In other words, you are trying to assert that someone has a dysfunction simply on the grounds that you find their behavior problematic. If I find your behavior problematic, should I assume you have a psychological dysfunction? --Ludwigs2 19:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You can't make any assumptions. If the guy buys 3, he might actually be cutting back. Maybe he used to buy 6 or 12. As to why anyone eats donuts instead of, say, liver - it might be because donuts taste good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There's academic research out there on this subject if you do a Google Scholar search. Much of it requires a subscription for the full version, but the abstracts can be quite illuminating: this one, for example. Our article section Eating_disorder#Causes also offers clues to the motivation of individuals with abnormal eating patterns. What you're asking for is a simple explanation for a complex phenomenon, which may vary from individual to individual. Most of the suggestions so far link to articles which, in some way or other, suggest that the fat guy eats the third donut because it satisfies a need, whatever that need is, however short-lived it may be, and whatever else may be going on with him. It seems from your clarification that you draw a clear distinction between the fat guy who bolts bags of donuts at a sitting and the guy who is just fat and lacks the insight or self-control to eat only what he needs, and who makes a clear, conscious choice to eat that third greasy snack. I'm not sure there's any evidence that the distinction is that clear, or that conscious choice plays any part in the transaction. If reading the research doesn't help, you could always try buying the fat guy a bag of donuts and asking him. Karenjc 20:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Ludwigs2. I think the questioner's initial wording was infelicitous and offensive to some, but the underlying question is a tough one. We've had many interesting, provocative questions asked by IPs in the 84.153.xxx.xxx range but this one is a stumper (stick to string theory and other easier topics in the future!) I believe that a morbidly obese person eating 3 donuts is doing something very dysfunctional given his circumstances. Most doctors would agree. Someone who weighs 500 pounds is likely to be dead in a decade or two, even if they're under 30 years old.

There are about 200-250 kcal in one Krispy Kreme donut.[13] Tim Hortons' donuts have similar numbers. If a person is maintaining their equilibrium weight eating a diet that includes one of these per day, then increases their intake to 3 per day; they'll gain about 40-50 pounds per year with that one behavioural change.In fact, as they become more obese, they'll metabolize calories more efficiently, making the situation worse. As for why they do this, it's just really, really complex and poorly understood, as I wrote already. More accurately, many people understand the reasons -- they just don't agree at all on what they are. In North America alone, there are millions of people daily making these kinds of choices and slowly dying of complications from obesity. The U.S. military recently pointed to the high incidence in obesity as increasingly impacting their ability to recruit enough physically qualified soldiers.

I'm not sure you're going to get a satisfactory answer here -- just pointers to articles that touch on the question which in turn have references that go into greater but often contradictory detail. Check back in a decade and hopefully we'll have better answers. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one who's still confused as to why it's claimed when it comes to their health, a fat person should be eating one donut but not say 2, 3 or perhaps even better none? Is there some requirement for a fat person to eat one donut but not any other number I'm not aware of? Is this a daily requirement or what? Nil Einne (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope, you're not alone in wandering about that. It appears there is some arbitrary rule that fat people should only eat one donut, but I got no further than that in comprehension. Basically (and this has been said before in the above discussion), the OP set up this arbitrary rule and is flabbergasted because fat people don't follow it and that is, in my view, the reason why this debate is not really going anywhere, even if there may be a good question in there somewhere. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, why don't you help me out like this. What do you think the good question in there somewhere is? The reason I think it's "obvious" that the person should still eat 1 donut, is because just because he's fat doesn't mean he shouldn't be eating! Further, it is perfectly normal to want a donut. There's nothing wrong with that (unless he's insulin-dependent diabetic or something). But what my question concerns is the difference between me at 180 and him at 500: I would not give my body 3 donuts, but he does. I get the same satisfaction from my donut that he gets from his 3. So, why does he do it? Maybe if there were as many people smoking 7 packs of cigarettes per day as there are 500-pound people, and I observed them doing that all the time, i could ask you guys "why do these people smoke 7 packs per day and not just 1 or at most 2?" Then you would see the point of my question. (yes, it is better not to smoke at all, but if you are smoking, why would you smoke 7 packs instead of 1?). But I can't ask THIS question, because there aren't as many people smoking 7 packs per day as there are 500-pound people eating 3 donuts. So, there is no analogy to draw. Do you see? I could ask about that situation, if it were real, but I can't, because it is not real. So, why is it real in the case of 3 donuts but not in the case of the 7 packs of cigarettes? What is the psychology of the 3 donuts, that does not apply to the 7 packs? Thank you. 84.153.212.109 (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a much clearer question than what you started with, 84.153. I don't know the answer, but thanks for the clarification. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If I wanted to eat 3 donuts, I would. I would probably want to go jog a few miles later in the day to reverse the weight effects of the donuts, but sometimes it is nice to let loose a bit and have some fun. Googlemeister (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There are people who smoke 3 packs. They could smoke just 1 pack, but noooo, they have to smoke 3. Then you talk to them, and they say that they want to stop, but they can't. Some causes have already been linked: obsessive compulsive disorder, habit, physical addiction, etc. Smokers are addicted to nicotine, maybe those people are addicted to sugar. They know that eating only 1 donut will give them craves for more sugar, so they directly go and eat 3.

And, yes, some people can smoke 4 or more packs a day, but smoke causes more damage quicker, and they have to stop very soon. And that's another reason: 3 donuts don't cause too much harm to the body. They know that eating 7 donuts would clog their arteries very quickly and cause them to feel bad, so they eat the maximum possible amount of donuts that won't cause damage that is easy to see and feel. In order to eat 1 or 0 donuts they have to make a conscious choice to reduce donut intake. Until then, they will eat as many as they can afford (3 donuts). Some of them have made the conscious choice, but they don't have the will power to carry on with their decision and buy only 1. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No one said anything about stopping eating. And trying to survive on one doughnut a day, and nothing else is not a healthy diet. In fact I would go as far as to say for most people, 3 donuts a day and nothing else is far better even if still very bad. However doughnuts aren't the healthiest of foods, and have little that you can't get from other foods which also more micronutrients such as vitamins and minerals. There's no reason why you can't have a very healthy diet without a donut. In fact I would go as far as to say in terms of pure health, if you construct a diet with a doughnut a day, you can construct a better/healthier diet without said donut. I'm not of course saying you need to cut out doughnuts for a healthy diet. But there's no reason why that diet has to have one, and only one donut (a day?) either. For example, a diet where the person doesn't eat any doughnuts on most days but eats 3 every Saturday fortnightly is probably better then one where they eat one donut every day. You've also concentrated solely on doughnuts. For example, someone who eats 2 or even the dreaded 3 donuts a day, but has a otherwise healthy diet full of whole grains, nuts, vegetables and fruits along with sufficient protein from whatever source and in appropriate quantitites etc likely has a better diet then someone who eats a KFC 10 pack every other day and 3 BigMac upsized meals and 3 McChicken upsized meals the other day but no doughnuts. Less extreme, someone who eats 2 or 3 donuts a day but has the otherwise healthy diet is probably better off then someone with the same diet minus doughnuts but with 1 bag of chips, half a 250g bar of chocolate and a large slice of chocolate cake smoothered with whipped cream every day. You can of course compare other examples like 1 donut+bag of chips+half bar of chocolate+healthy diet cf 3 doughnuts+healthy diet. In other words, if the person's unhealthy food item is donuts but they have an otherwise very healthy diet, eating 2 or 3 a day isn't the worse diet sin of all time. I haven't even mentioned exercise... P.S. What gave you the idea you get the same 'satisfaction' from 1 doughnut as 3? Nil Einne (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

One sensible question that seems to be trying to get out is: why can some people stop eating after one donut while others carry on? Personally, I think of this in terms of addictive behaviour. Why do some people gamble just now and again, while others have their lives destroyed by it? Why do some people have just one beer now and again when they feel like it, and others drink to excess? Our articles probably contain everything that is known about these questions. Researchers are still working on it. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Experimental" suicide

Another suicide question. (Is it necessary to state that my interest is academic rather than practical?) The majority of people who commit suicide do so for fraught emotional or social reasons: to escape from an intolerable situation, to gratify a powerful self-hatred, to make a point, even to spitefully wound one's survivors ("They'll all be sorry!"). A smaller number commit suicide as some sort of extreme altruistic sacrifice, by such diverse methods as life insurance fraud and suicide bombing. But in all the aforementioned instances, whether the suicide was selfish or altruistic, the motive centers on the world of the living, and death is merely the instrument. So here's my question: Is there any recorded case of someone committing suicide in order to satisfy an overwhelming curiosity about death? It's certainly common for human beings to meditate on the concepts of death and mortality, and people have certainly committed murder in order to "see what it's like". Why not suicide? The closest I can find is someone like Yukio Mishima, but that doesn't really work, because curiosity wasn't his motive. I'm looking for a Faustian type who was so eager for the subjective experience of death that he hastened the process. Is this fantastical, or did such a thing ever happen? LANTZY^TALK 18:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't quite what you are asking about, but, around one century ago, the Romanian scientist Nicolas Minovici hanged himself multiple times out of scientific curiosity. Albeit not with the intention of dying; in fact he made sure he survived every experiment, and his curiosity wasn't about death and the afterlife, but about hanging and the sensation of being hanged. (Don't try this at home). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As with David Carradine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess the movie Flatliners or the book Les Thanatonautes and other similar plots (see TV Tropes on "Flatline Plotline") are related too. In all of these examples, however, the actors only wish to come as close to death as possible, without experiencing one of its key characteristics: its irreversibility. Perhaps there are examples of scientifically (or Faustian) minded people suffering from a terminal illness? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to perish before publishing? (Perishing in order to publish is a bit extreme, and self-defeating to boot, however admirably devoted to research the motivation may be...). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The first thing htat comes to mind of Plato's Phaedo. Socrates says, "...the soul of the philosopher utterly disdains the body and flees from it...," "'death'-a release and parting of soul from body," "when death attacks a person the mortal part, it seems, dies; whereas the immortal part gets out of the way of death, departs, and goes away intact and undestroyed." So, Socrates seems to not fear death in any way, and is, like you say, curious. schyler (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There is the case of Armin Meiwes, the cannibal who found someone on the internet who consented to being killed and eaten. I don't know much about it but the victim seems to have wanted the experience. Although he might have been more interested in being eaten alive than death itself. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

kjv paraphrase?

Recently I heard that the King James Bible was not a translation but a paraphrase. Can you shed any light on this for me? RON VAUGHN (e-mail address removed) --Patronala (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Bible version debate - subsection:"Types of translation" sheds some light on different approaches to translating the bible (or any text for that matter, see also dynamic and formal equivalence). The King James Bible, however, is usually listed as an example of comparatively formal equivalence, not a paraphrase, so I guess those articles can't shed any light on what you recently heard. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Jason BeDuhn's most recent book Truth in Translation highlights how "contemporary Christian views are anachronistically introduced into the Bibles most modern English-speaking Christians rely on." A good read or use as a reference. schyler (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The KJV was translated from the Greek. That means it is a translation of a translation. Whereas, there are other versions like the New Revised Standard Version whose editors attempt to find the oldest sources in Hebrew and Aramaic so as to be as close in time to the described events as possible. It doesn't really matter what version you go by. The whole thing is a patchwork of redacted material edited after the fact so as to portray a particular political point of view. At a point in history about when the book of Dan occurred some editors from the priestly class (Levites) went through and added material portraying some kings as "doing right in the eyes of the lord" and others having done "wrong in the eyes of the lord." Invariably, the kings that waged war and conquered new lands were the good ones, and the ones that didn't were the bad ones. It didn't matter if they were otherwise just, decent, or had prosperous economies. Greg Bard (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, 1) The KJV translators certainly made use of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. In fact, that was one of the most important points of Protestant Bible translations into English ca. 1600 (as opposed to the Catholic Douai Bible, which was pretty much a straight-up translation of the Latin Vulgate). 2) There's no "Book of Dan" and no evidence that I've ever heard of that such a book existed (unless you count the rather obscure subsection of Testaments_of_the_Twelve_Patriarchs#Dan). AnonMoos (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You know I'm so familiar since Dan and I go way back. I'm talking about the Book of Daniel.Greg Bard (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That's nice; however, Dan and Daniel are separate and distinct names in Hebrew. AnonMoos (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's quite a cynical view Gregbard, but I'd like to see a reference for the claim that the Levites "added material," in the sense of which you are speaking. The Levites were not political, but were solely spiritual. They had no vested interest in war because they would not receive anything from it (Numbers 18:20). The Levites were not in charge of any kind of editing of Scripture. "The work of the Levites was highly organized under David.. to assist... with the offerings, sacrifices, purification work, weighing, measuring and various guard duties;" "setting up, dismantling, and carrying the tabernacle was the work of the Levites;" "the Levites needed to be well versed in the Law, often being called upon to read it in public and teach it to the common people" (Insight On The Scriptures, v. 2, p. 241).
The books in which the phrases "did bad/good in the eyes of the LORD" occur in the Books of Kings and the Books of Chronicles. These were written by Jeremiah and Ezra, respectively, and were works compiled and researched to give a summary of national history. Indeed, the study of history is bias, but it is not Man's bias, for, the two men involved in transcribing the works were humble servants of Jehovah, and doing bad/good in the eyes of the LORD would be accurate beyond first perception. schyler (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Cynical? Well that's one way to look at it. I guess I'm a bit cynical about Jefferey Dahmer too then, but he only killed a handful of people. Whereas, the Jews embarked on a genocide of the peaceful Canaanites, and then wrote a book promulgating the idea that god wanted them to do it. That worked like a charm. Perhaps Dahmer just needed a better PR department.

For a reference, you may want to read Bart D. Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet. I would say that your childlike faith that the Levites weren't political is very naive, as well as the belief that Jeremiah and Ezra were mere transcriptionists. Greg Bard (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have some informed criticism to bring forward, or just a concatenation of semi-randomly-chosen derogatory epithets? And "peaceful Canaanites" is rather historically ludicrous... AnonMoos (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not "ludicrous" in the least. The harshest criticism of the Canaanites is their practice of child sacrifice. They were a peaceful agricultural society minding their own business. The Jews went in and slaughtered every man woman and child. That's genocide, and there is no denying that. Greg Bard (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to get all sensationalistic about it, especially when it's not even on-topic. Is there a ref for how peaceful the Canaanites really were, Greg, or is that just your POV? Surely they were not radically more "peace-loving" than their contemporaries, Israelites included? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sensationalism? We're talking about genocide. I am pretty sure that if you are going to gloss over a genocide the burden of proof is going to be on YOU to provide some reason to think they weren't peaceful. For instance some war THEY started, or some other atrocity. I mentioned the child sacrifice issue. However The Jews really do lose all credible moral authority, if they go in and kill every man woman and child (remember it wasn't a political conquering --the intention was to kill everyone.) That doesn't exactly address child sacrifice in any sensible way now does it?Greg Bard (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay: you don't have a ref. That's all I wanted to know. And I don't have any burden here, because you are no longer making any attempt to answer the question, so please take any further comments you may have that do not involve answering the question elsewhere. Thanks. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 06:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Montreal Airport Bus

Hello. Was Montréal's airport bus named Route 747 after the Boeing? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering that on the whole STM system the next highest route number is 535, I think that's a pretty safe assumption. --Anonymous, 08:34 UTC, November 8, 2010.

When was that bus route's number assigned? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

American south

Do people in the American south pronounce "oil" "owl"? Where can I hear a pronunciation? Albacore (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, they don't. Some of them pronounce it something like all, and they might pronounce all something like owl. --Trovatore (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you might pronounce "owl" the way someone with a Southern (American) accent pronounces "oil", I don't know. We have an article on Southern American English, though I am not seeing anything there right now about that particular sound, and I've never really noticed that word being all that affected by a Southern accent myself. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to say since there are regional variances to the Southern accent. I lived in TN for several years and met a few people whose accents were so thick that other Southerners would say they couldn't understand them. Most of the people that I dealt with at work, and the word oil would come up regularly at my workplace, would pronounce it somewhere between all and owl. Dismas|^(talk) 00:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.forvo.com/ and http://www.howjsay.com/. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Seconded Trovatore's comment; like Awl. schyler (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Never heard it as "owl". As "awl" it's pretty common. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I know what the OP is referring to. It's less of a southern accent and more of a (I can't identify which of the Wikipedia articles are on point) "west Texas" or "Western" (as in Montana, Wyoming... not California, Oregon or Washington) way of speaking. I think our Southern accent article's a little indiscriminate when it's talking about Texas; there's a lot more variation in that state than the article suggests. Shadowjams (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My mother grew up in Dallas, Texas and she pronounced oil just like JR Ewing did on the celebrated soap opera Dallas, which was awl. Just watch reruns of the programme to hear it pronounced thus.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what distinction people are making between all and awl. Note that I do distinguish cot from caught, so it isn't that (both all and awl have the caught vowel; it would sound very strange to use the cot vowel for either of them). --Trovatore (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I thing a strong southern accent would pronounce "all" more like "owl". "Awl" is fairly unambiguous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, that is true. Once when my parents visited my mom's sister in Mississippi, my dad was confused at being offered "Owl Bran". But here I was assuming all was being pronounced in General American. --Trovatore (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The a in all is not drawled as it is in awl. Actually Texans use the term y'awl for you all. This is likely derived from their Ulster ancestors' colloquial usage of youse as a plural for you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it is correctly spelled y'all. A more common misspelling is ya'll. --Trovatore (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It is spelled y'all but pronounced y'awl.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No clear difference has been adduced. Both vowels seem to be /ɔː/. Are you just talking about the length of time the vowel is held? --Trovatore (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good way of putting it. The a in awl would be dragged out longer than in all.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That ubiquitous expression even has its own possessive form: "Y'all's". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Y'all" ain't standard English where I'm from, but "You'ens" is. —Kevin Myers 13:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The question noone seems to ask themselves is: how does the OP pronounce "owl"? TomorrowTime (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I did (up at the top). I've found the discussion since very interesting. I've mostly been exposed to a Virginian southern accent, and am still not sure there's a very great distinction in that variation from "standard American". But I agree with Jeanne that where there is a distinction it seems in part an elongation of the vowel sound, maybe in some cases making it almost two syllables: "aw-el". WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the OP wants to know the answer to this question, but there is a wealth of videos that can teach a person how to speak with a 'Southern' accent. I use quotations because they speak different in Mississippi and Texas or Alabama and Louisiana. I'm 'er defaul t'Texan speakin' cause it's'r bit easer t'unerstan'. I would suggest this video. Watch the intro and then skip to 5:15 to see Texas. Quite informative; plus, all the links on the side to related videos have other examples of native Texans speakers.
A good example of Southern English is the name of a street in the city I grew up in. It was called Hard Wood when it was first started (supposedly because the area was a source of good hard wood). Its name soon enough changed to Harwood and the sign on the stoplight reflects that eas'r speakin' Texan drawl. schyler (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of curiosity, Texans call toilet paper Tawlit papah. I used to always try to correct my mother, but to no avail.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've heard "oil" pronounced "earl," as in Duke of Earl. That pronunciation I've heard in New York City. Bus stop (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Or as it "terlet". Or the time-honored, likely apocryphal story when Waite Hoyt suffered an injury, and the Brooklynesque teammmate hollered to the trainer, "Hert's hoyt!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to hear it, you're in luck. Fortunately there is a forum, the US Senate, where a number of Southerners are regularily recorded talking about oil. Here's one from Kentucky[14] and one from South Carolina[15]. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Kentucky clip (at 1:14) sounds just like "oil" to me. The South Carolina sample (at 0:08) does definitely sound like a Southern-accented "oil" but nothing like any pronunciation of "owl" that I can recall having heard before. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with those clips is that these men have been educated (presumably). It takes some ignorance and isolation to be colloquial. schyler (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, Schyler, but my mother was well-educated. Both of her parents attended college; her father had articles, poems, and stories published. All of her grandparents and great-grandparents were highly literate.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

November 8

Gender stereotypes in toys

The World Wide Web has a large number of documents about gender stereotypes in toys, for example, http://www.andrews.edu/~rbailey/Chapter%20one/9040385.pdf (The Effects of Stereotyped Toys and Gender on Play Assessment in Children Aged 18–47 Months). However, I have been unsuccessful in my search for international statistics and recent trends.

• How do various countries rank in their degree of gender stereotyping in toys?
• How do various retailers rank in their degree of gender stereotyping in toys?
• How do various manufacturers rank in their degree of gender stereotyping in toys?
• How do various media rank in their degree of gender stereotyping in toys?
• Which countries, retailers, manufacturers, and media are increasing gender stereotyping in toys, and which ones are decreasing it?
• Who or what is ultimately promoting gender stereotyping in toys, and who or what is ultimately inhibiting it?

—Wavelength (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have very high expectations of statistics! They are probably not collected for such things. And there are underlying definitions that you need to explore, for example how do you define a gender-stereotyped toy? What about a situation where dolls are being bought for little girls, but their brothers also play with them? Have you thought about using some kind of case study approach to your questions, where you take the largest manufacturers, download their catalogues, and analyse them using some kind of framework? Lego comes immediately to mind as an interesting case that is relatively unstereotyped. Then there are books, music and story CDs, jigsaw puzzles, educational toys generally. Tricycles and bicycles - does it matter if they are only available in pink and blue, though? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

To your four questions, I give the following answers.

• Definitions may vary somewhat among various researchers, but I anticipate that such variation would be minimal. On page 100 of the document to which I linked in my opening message, the authors mentioned a seven-point Likert-type scale, where 1 means "very male", 4 means "neither male nor female", and 7 means "very female". On page 101, M means "male stereotyped toy", F means "female stereotyped toy", and N means "neutral stereotyped toy".
• Where brothers play with their sisters' dolls, the dolls would still be considered as stereotyped for females.
• I had not thought about doing my own primary research, but that is not completely outside the realm of possibility.
• If tricycles and bicycles are only available in pink and blue, that does not matter.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

[I am revising my reply by inserting the underlined word primary.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)]

persian in south asian languages

which muslim dynasty introduced persian language? mughals or delhi sultanate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.252 (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK it became a lingua franca under the courts/rule of the Mughal dynasty. Dari Persian I believe is still considered the more cosmopolitan today. More an area of curiosity than expertise in my case, however. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Delhi Sultanate used Persian as its official language, too. Marco polo (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The first Islamic dynasty to rule India was the Ghaznavid empire (10th-12th centuries), which originated from Persia. I, however, doubt that Persian was not spoken in the country prior to this. India was a hot bed for merchants from all over the place. I have a two volume work on the history of the Persian language in India. I don't recall the name off hand, but I could look it up if you are interested. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

For that matter, the rule of the Persian-speaking Sassanids and Achaemenids extended into India. Marco polo (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

New york accent

For many years listening to New York accents (mostly on tv) I have always thought there was a very strong Dutch influence. I know that the article New York accent does mention that a layering of Dutch will be there due to the early Dutch settlers. I do though feel that the Dutch accent comes very much more to the fore than any other settlers accents from the past. Would New Yorkers and others agree with this? It could also be that my recognition of accents is not as good as I think and I'm missing other accents that have as much influence on the Newyorkers way of speech. Jack forbes (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't say I agree, a Dutch accent sounds quite different to me. A "New York" (for example, listening to news radio) accent tends to be "neutral." That said, many neighborhoods or boroughs have their own distinct accent. I somehow avoided the dreaded (or lauded depending on your perspective) Brooklyn accent which either side would argue compellingly is the antithesis of the "New York" accent. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's true that there is more than one New York accent. I think the stereotypical New York accent is the white working-class accent of, say, Queens. Having grown up outside New York and now living in Boston (an area where Dutch colonists had little presence), I have a perspective on these accents. Both the Boston and New York accents are among the few accents in North America affected by the loss of rhoticity in parts of eastern England in the 17th and 18th centuries. In the case of Boston, this is probably because the original settlers in the 17th century came from an area (East Anglia) that had probably already lost rhoticity. In the case of New York, it is probably because English settlers did not begin to outnumber the Dutch until the end of the 17th century, by which time the London region, where many originate, was probably non-rhotic. The features that most distinguish the New York accent from the Boston accent are the pronunciation of vowels written ar, which in IPA symbols is roughly [aː] in Boston and [ɒː] in New York, and the breaking of the vowel in words like law and dog. In Boston, this is pronounced [ɔː]; in New York it is a glide [ʊ̯ɔː]. The first feature might just be connected with the backing of /a/ in Dutch words like Amsterdam. The second, though, has no connection to Dutch that I can see. The only foreign connection that occurs to me is the similar breaking of Latin /o/ in Italian words such as buono, though I think that this feature is more likely to have developed indigenously than as a result of Italian influence. Likewise, the backing of ar could be an indigenous development as well. Marco polo (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Not quite on-topic, but it may be of interest... Gangs of New York mentions this: "Particular attention was also paid to the speech of characters, as loyalties were often revealed by their accents... To develop the unique, lost accents of the Yankee "Nativists" such as Daniel Day-Lewis's character, Monich studied old poems, ballads, newspaper articles... Monich concluded that native nineteenth century New Yorkers probably sounded something like the proverbial Brooklyn cabbie of the mid-twentieth." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.97.146 (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It probably varied a lot by class. My grandmother, who was of upper middle class English and Scottish descent, grew up in Brooklyn in the first and second decades of the 20th century. Her accent was very similar to that of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), who was likewise of Protestant white descent and grew up in the New York area in the late 19th century. Here is an audio clip of FDR. Marco polo (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

other explanations

what are other explanations for this: http://english.pnn.ps/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9100 Than the conclusion the article reaches regarding the reason for the attack? (i.e. other than the explanation that the attacks took place because he 'looked like an arab', and that the attack was of a 'nationalistic' character). Secondly, how likely is the article's conclusion to be accurate? (0.0-1.0) Thirdly, insofar as there is a significant chance that the article is accurate, I would like to know where in Nazi Germany 1920-1945 this sentiment expressed in this way could be placed? In other words, when is the earliest time during that period that nationalistic German youth would have attacked someone for looking Jewish (without that person actually being Jewish)? Thank you. 84.153.236.235 (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that you're editing from a German IP, I'm guessing you probably read and write German. I think you'll probably get a better answer faster at our German counterpart, w:de:Wikipedia:Auskunft. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think they don't like to always have everything compared to the Worst Thing That Modern Humanity Has Ever Done, the Holocaust, i.e. that they did. So I wouldn't ask them... (It's just rude.) 84.153.236.235 (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

84.153.236.235—you say, "I think they don't like to always have everything compared to the Worst Thing That Modern Humanity Has Ever Done, the Holocaust." Where in your above explanation did you compare anything to "the Worst Thing That Modern Humanity Has Ever Done, the Holocaust."? I don't see that. Bus stop (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Good questions, OP. I'm sure you've already thought that one possibility is that it could have been an incident of "non-ethnic" hooliganism pure and simple. The victim is reported to have said "they said I looked like an Arab" (in a language he could understand, while they were kicking and beating him...). There does not seem to be any other evidence of that being the real cause. It does seem at least plausible that that really was the cause, though. (I am not familiar enough with German social history to know the answer to your final question). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see that - the article is vague enough on the point of who said the guy looked like an Arab that my assumption was that the friends he was visiting told him that. Presumably in either English or Spanish. Or he may even speak Hebrew (remember, the friends were Jewish), in which case he might have understood his attackers. Also, in my own opinion, it's quite likely that this was racially charged - after all, unfortunately no society is completely without angry, hostile, violent racist idiots. I don't see why Israel would be an exception. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

An attack like that isn't unique to a Nazi environment. One could easily find an example of Jewish looking people attacked in Germany in 1919 or earlier. People have been attacked in recent years in Germany for looking foreign or Turkish. A few similar attacks are mentioned in the Racism in Germany article if you're interested in an actual reference. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

When seagulls follow the trawler

What meaning or point was Eric trying to convey? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3221471.stm Unlike us Brits, the Froggies have philosophy lessons at school apparantly. 92.24.186.80 (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

According to our article on Eric Cantona, he was "[p]erhaps referring to how journalists would constantly monitor his behaviour" ("Cantona said, in a slow and deliberate manner: "When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea. Thank you very much." He then got up from his seat and left, leaving many of the assembled crowd bemused.") So, Cantona is the trawler, the journalists are the seagulls, and the newsworthy gossip are the sardines. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there's an implicit suggestion that reporters are opportunistic scavengers willing to squawk and squabble loudly over any smelly refuse that falls into their grasp. which may in fact be largely true... --Ludwigs2 22:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean, maybe? I'm thinking of a certain Don Henley song right about now... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the interpretation of the quotation given by Sluzzelin is the most obvious one, I do think that Cantona's main point was made not so much by the content of his remark, but by the absurdity of it; by saying something seemingly nonsensical to a room full of journalists and cameramen waiting for a statement, he perfectly ridiculed the media hysteria surrounding him at that time. Ooh aah Cantona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

November 9

Skinner

2 questions about BF Skinner: 1) Is the Professor Burris in Walden II the version of the author himself in a story (I forgot what that's called)? 2) WHo is the second most famous writer or philosopher or statesman, etc (pretty much any non-entertainer) who is also known by the surname skinner? (your Skinner article is not very helpful in that repsect, it is only a list Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding #2, how could we possibly rank all the Skinners listed by popularity? There is no objective scale for "most famous". Dismas|^(talk) 05:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oldowan tools experiment

The author of this book review states, in passing, "Experiments have shown that Oldowan tools can be made using just the part of the brain that was available back in Homo habilis times." Is that true? What was the nature of these experiments? I can't find anything at the Oldowan article. LANTZY^TALK 06:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Word for three joint rulers

Not sure if this should be posted here or at the language desk but I am looking for a word that describes the rule of three persons over a state. I believe it begins with 'Tri-' and I believe the word also contains a 'V' but I can't for the life of me think of the name of the word. I'd be very greatful for any help, my dictionary hasn't yielded any information so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.60.224.196 (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Triumvirate is what you seek. DuncanHill (talk) 08:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.60.224.196 (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Next time try reading the dictionary entries in reverse order, starting with triz-, then triy-, etc., and you'll find it sooner. --Anonymous, 09:40 UTC, November 9, 2010.

I don't see why reading it from "triz-" to "tria-" would be any faster in a general sense than reading it "tria-" to "triz-", if you don't know any more of the word than the opening "tri-". GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nabokov on Dostoyevsky

As I understand it, Nabokov prized the writings of Tolstoy very highly, but considered that Dostoyevsky was wholly overrated. The idolisation of Tolstoy is apparent from many of his writings, but I can't seem to find anything that explains why he disliked Dostoyevsky. Can anyone help? 84.93.169.198 (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)