Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

April 30

human race

why is it that they are different race —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyphilia (talk • contribs) 01:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If you mean why there are human races, probably a combination of founder effect, limited adaptation to climatic conditions, and sexual selection... AnonMoos (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That is one answer, but as our article Race (classification of humans) demonstrates, 'race' is largely a social construct: it only really exists because we want it to. Curiously, one of the things that unites the 'human race' is a propensity to divide ourselves up into arbitrary categories... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

There are two kinds of people: Those who go around dividing the world into two kinds of people; and those who don't. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like the way Joyphilia phrased the question, imagine it was "Why are there consistent externally-visible phenotypic variations between human populations"? (That was the question that I was answering above...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

See Human genetic variation. Like all living things, the human genome undergoes mutations. Because humans are spread over a huge area of the planet, and until recently, had (relatively) little genetic migration, the opportunity for genetic differences between populations arose. Similar effects are seen for other organisms, with terms like Color phase, Subspecies, Breed, or Race (biology). Some of this variation is undoubtedly driven by natural selection, while other aspects are probably random effects due to the founder effect and genetic drift. Buddy431 (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

USNSY Pearl Harbor Drydock #2.

Someone recently wrote, I arrived in Honolulu Airport 17 Sep 1971 to report to my duty station, USS HADDOCK SSN621, which was in USNSY; Pearl Harbor; Drydock #2. (in part of a question over on the Wikipedia helpdesk [1]).

I've read about USS Haddock (SSN-621), and...I am just curious about what USNSY is, in this context. My guess would be, 'US Navy Service Yard' - but I don't actually know. Any ideas?  Chzz  ►  03:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

United States Naval Ship Yard? —— Shakescene (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC) ¶ See the opening paragraph of Brooklyn Navy Yard for comparison. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

ocean liners and Willie Morris

Did Willie Morris travel aboard the SS Flandre from the USA to the UK? Mr. Morris didn't travel aboard the SS Ile de France from the UK to the USA. (That vessel was scrapped in 1959.) Mr. Morris return to the USA was in 1960. I could be wrong about a few of those items. If I'm right, what ocean liner did he travel aboard for his return?24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Studies in race

What generally accepted studies have shown that there is/isnt a relationship between a person belonging to a particular region of the world and his intellectual capacity if other factors are not considered?-Shahab (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Race and intelligence. --Tango (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Animal crultey Woudl it be considered crule to mastrubate a male dogg to make him cum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.229.67 (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Probably not "cruel"... but it would certainly be considered inappropriate. In many societies it would even be considered criminal (a form of Bestiality). Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC) The OP is a sock of the banned user "Light current". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC) The question is readily answerable, so there's no need to dismiss it as a "troll", even if a childish perspective is suspected. Dog masturbation is considered neither cruel nor inappropriate, if done by a veterinarian or by a private individual with a profit motive.[2][3] and many others. While one often hears bestiality described as immoral in forums, I'm actually finding it rather difficult to find Google hits for cases where the dog was masturbated rather than penetrated (consistent with either this practice, or the much higher overall male imprisonment rate, it would seem). Wnt (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Banned users are not allowed to edit. The alleged quality of their edits is irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Westminster Abbey flag

What was the flag flying over Westminster Abbey before the royal wedding? - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 17:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Standard of Westminster Abbey.svg the abbey flag with the coat of arms of Westminster Abbey. MilborneOne (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The main emblem on the lower half of the flag is from the attributed arms of Edward the Confessor who built the first great minster church at Westminster in 1045. "The arms attributed to Edward the Confessor originated in the silver coins of his reign, which bore a cross between four doves: symbols of piety and gentleness"[4]. Another (less likely) explanation is a local legend from the Romford area of the east London and Essex borders. "King Edward the Confessor is the first notable person to have a connection with the area. He occupied the royal house in the village of Havering atte Bower. His life, like so many Saxon kings, is full of legends. It is said that this holy man was disturbed in his prayers by the singing of nightingales, and so he leant out of the window of his room and told the birds to be quiet. They were, and he continued his prayers in peace. This incident is commemorated by the inclusion of the heraldic birds on the arms of St Edward"[5]. Alansplodge (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The other three parts of the flag come from the Plantagenet family; the "white-in-red rose" in the two corners comes from the roses representing the two branches (York and Lancaster) that fought during the Wars of the Roses. The centre bit is part of the traditional Royal Arms of England, the Gules three lions passant guardant in pale Or armed and langued Azure aka, three gold lions on a red background, with blue claws and tongues, is one of the oldest symbols associated with England, dating to Richard I, and the other two quarters, being gold fleur-de-lys on a blue background, is a symbol of France, and was long part of the coats of arms of English Kings, coming from the claims of the Plantagenet English kings to the Throne of France, and date from the age of the Hundred Years Wars time. You can find most of these elements, along with Edward the Confessor's cross and birds motif, at various arms of English Kings throughout the ages, see File:Coat of Arms of Richard II of England (1377-1399).svg. --Jayron32 05:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Presumably, the Plantagenet emblems are from Henry III of England who had the Abbey rebuilt and is buried there. Alansplodge (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

...except that the "white-in-red rose" is not a Plantagenet emblem, it's the Tudor rose. Thus Henry VII, who had a chapel built for him at the Abbey (the Henry VII Chapel, surprisingly), is a more likely candidate. 87.115.153.210 (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

ten year census

Is the imformation from the last census private? Do only a select few get to view the trends?76.178.113.225 (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)222smile

Which country's census? There are 200-ish sovereign nations in the world, so we need to know whose decennial census you want to find information on... --Jayron32 19:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's the Uk 2011 census you mean - personal information is kept confidential for 100 years (so will be released in 2111. Also it notes that personal information is not shared with government departments. (http://2011.census.gov.uk/My-census/Frequently-asked-questions#27) ny156uk (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

However, all the aggregated information will be made public, with lots of breakdowns. --Tango (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP address is from the U.S., so I assume the OP means the 2010 United States Census. In that case, personal information is kept private for 72 years, so it won't be released until 2082. But the trends, without personal information, is probably available already at http://www.census.gov/. —Angr (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Existence in the universe

When people deny the existence of something because it is an imagination or mythological (like a unicorn), are we all referring to this planet but not the entire universe? For example, an exact copy of the Earth might exist somewhere in the other galaxy. If you deny, then I will ask how do you know?. (Please note that this does not apply to God because of its definition, and please do not start an argument about God here) Aquitania (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You have to remember that it is impossible to definitively prove anything, given any particularly arbitrary standard of "proof". For example: prove definitively that I exist, and that you are not currently hallucinating this conversation, or more to the point that your entire existance isn't an elaborate hallucination. By the same standard, its also impossible to disprove anything. However, at some point you need to assume that you can trust your own senses and intellect, because to believe that you cannot makes it impossible to operate in the world. Insofar as you can do that, there needs to be some standards of proof, whereby we say "Insofar as I see no evidence of it existing, I will assume it doesn't, pending such evidence". There is no evidence that unicorns exist, so we must take the standard that they do not. To believe otherwise, to assume that all things exist until proven that they do not, is a greater impossibility, because I could just invent some fanciful thing right now, and I would instantly have a claim that it exists, and could demand that you prove that it doesn't. One thing you should read is Occam's razor, which covers this philosophical ground quite well. --Jayron32 21:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course, if we're assuming everything exists until it is proven not to, then a universe where unicorns don't exist exists. We've shifted back the burden of proof, and no-one's gone anywhere. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

When someone says "X exists", it is usually assumed to mean that X exists in a way that is accessible or tangible, at least to that person and conceivably to others. restating the question in the form "X exists somewhere where no one can experience it" makes for a different and completely unanswerable question. In other words, saying "there is a man in that room" can be answered - Either there is a man in that room (true) or there isn't (false). saying "there is a man in that room whenever no one is observing" is unanswerable. "Unicorns exist on this planet" lends itself to reasoned investigation and discussion; "unicorns exist on some other planet, far, far away" can only be speculated on. --Ludwigs2 22:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose it can be speculated upon, but there should also be no reason to expect any person to accept the possibility of unicorns existing merely on the non-disprovability of their existance. We can speculate on anything, but we are not required to accept as possibly true, any such speculation. There's no requirement that we accept extraterrestrial unobservable unicorns as more possibly true than any other random, imagined thing. And that's the crux of it; people have no right to demand that others consider the viability of an idea with zero evidence. We can play "let's pretend" all day long, but we should not consider such pretense to be reality. --Jayron32 23:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Myths about creatures like unicorns are generally either about Earth or another "plane of existence" or whatever it's called. I don't think foreign planets in this universe count if the creatures have never visited Earth or been visited by humans. If we tried to count extraterrestrial life then we could also get into arguments about when "horse-like" creatures with a "horn-like" pointy thing on the "forehead" is a "unicorn". Considering the billions of galaxies with billions of stars, there may well be things out there which would be called unicorns if they were suddenly discovered on Earth, but I wouldn't consider that any vindication of unicorn myths. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

From Russell's teapot: "... the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others ...". Mitch Ames (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the interesting comparison here is space aliens. Most scientists have no problem with the possibility of extraterrestrial life - if fact, the search for life in other places of the universe is a significant scientific endeavor. On the other hand, most scientists scoff at the idea that there have been extraterrestrial beings who have visited this planet - the later is a much stronger claim with much weaker evidence. this is the difference I was suggesting above. --Ludwigs2 05:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, before the 18th-century in European literature, black swans were used as the textbook example of a non-existent animal (more so than unicorns, since not everybody was convinced of the non-existence of unicorns until a relatively late date). Then of course black swans were found in Australia... AnonMoos (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Which just goes to show that - as I have always suspected - Australia is an imaginary place. I mean seriously: Kangaroos? Koalas? Duck-billed platypi? who are they trying to kid? --Ludwigs2 04:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed imaginary - [6]. There are no real people or animals here. That means no black swans, of course. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Coo! Does that mean that the black swan who is nesting on the River Avon down the road from my house in Warwickshire comes all the way from Australia then? That's some migration!--TammyMoet (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Black Swan, "Black Swans were first seen by Europeans in 1697, when Willem de Vlamingh's expedition explored the Swan River, Western Australia"... AnonMoos (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Evidence of absence and the articles it points to is where I would start, although semantically I would argue that when a person declares "There is no such thing as a unicorn", the declaration is implicitly about Earth, and not a twin Earth across the galaxy, or a slightly-different Earth in an inaccessible dimension. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

When did the American Civil War end?

For my sets of maps (like Territorial evolution of the United States), I've been wondering, what date should I consider to be the 'end' of the American Civil War? There appear to be five valid options:

1. April 9, 1865: The Army of Northern Virginia surrendered. This was the primary army of the Confederacy, and its surrender essentially ended major combat.
2. May 5, 1865: CSA President Jefferson Davis declares the Confederate government officially dissolved.
3. May 10, 1865: Jefferson Davis is captured.
4. June 23, 1865: General Stand Watie, the last remaining Confederate general, surrenders his army.
5. August 20, 1866: U.S. President Andrew Jackson declares the war formally at an end.

Number 5, while the 'official' proclamation, is not commonly used, just as few people say that World War II in the Pacific ended on April 28, 1952. #3 seems extraneous to #2 but I included it since a capture also has meaning. #4 meant the end of large military activities (at least one ship was still raiding until August, but I can't count that as it would also mean counting, for example, the Japanese holdouts after WW2). So that seems to leave me with options 1 and 2. 1 is by far the most well-known date, but - in this particular circumstance - I'm making a map of the history of Alabama. And the armies in Alabama didn't surrender until around May 9. Still, for simplicity's sake, and for the sake of the most well-known date - Lee's surrender - it seems prudent to just use April 9, 1865, as the proper date. Any thoughts? --Golbez (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what purpose I was doing this. If I were trying to give a general date for the end of the war, April 9, 1865 is as good as any. However, if I were doing a map showing when each state rejoined the union, I would use the official dates of when each state officially rejoined the union, which would be different for each state. For example, an animation showing the order of each states readmission would be better than one in which the entire confederacy magically becomes union again on April 9, 1865; or indeed any other single date... --Jayron32 23:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I sense a slight against my map where the confederacy magically becomes union again on April 9. ;) Don't worry, I'm fixing that in version 2. And after looking over it, ... I don't know, they were technically "readmitted to congress", not the union; as far as the union is concerned, they never left, so they never needed to come back. Then again, being a state means having representation in congress. There's a lot of waffling going on here. :P This is a map of how the counties of Alabama have changed over time, so ... I suppose I could include two things, when it was readmitted to congress, and when the confederate government was dissolved (if one believes the states actually seceded, then that simply split them from a confederation into individual countries again). --Golbez (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

All those dates are significant, but for the subject at hand, I would definitely base it upon the dates found at Reconstruction_era_of_the_United_States#Readmission_to_representation_in_Congress. Schyler (one language) 23:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at an historical atlas right now, and there's a map with a date written over each confederate state listing the date it was readmitted to congress. So clearly, others have felt that those dates were significant. --Jayron32 23:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

April 9 is traditionally thought of as the end of the Civil War, at least more than any other date. However, anyone who's spent any time in the South can tell you the war never really did end. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Having lived in the old Confederacy for nineteen of my years, it's odd that I've never heard of such a holiday. --Golbez (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

#5:That's Andrew Johnson, not Andrew Jackson. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

We should consider what date is used by reliable sources, and avoid original research. If the town of Stump Junction, Alabama refused to admit the Civil War was lost, and the local militia drilled each month in Confederate regalia until 1968, that does not mean the American Civil War lasted 167 years! The end of a war does not await the admission by the very last combatant that the "Great Cause" is lost, or WW2 would have lasted until 1974 when Hiroo Onoda and Teruo Nakamura stopped running around on Pacific islands pretending the war was still going on. Edison (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Good thing I specifically discarded that situation! --Golbez (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You could have a longer war, such as the Russo-Japanese War, which only saw the end of warfare between Montenegro and Japan in 2006. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Or the Peloponnesian War, which was ended with a peace treaty in 1996, after a trifling 24 centuries ;-) [7]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Bashar al-Assad, even though an Arab, practically looks like a white man

It's interesting, he looks no less white than many Southern and Eastern Europeans and Jews (all of whom look a bit less white than Northwest Europeans e.g. Germanic/Celtic peoples, who are the most obviously white), and he has blue eyes. Don't give me the 'race is a social construct' BS because the nonsense leftist moron theory of 'social constructivism' wilts in the face of biological genetic reality. I suppose many Turks look like Southern and Eastern Europeans as well, and Syria is close to Turkey.

My question is do you think race is a social construct? I don't, and I think that genetic differences determine not only a person's physical appearance (morphology) but other characteristics as well, such as mental characteristics. This even happens amongst people of the same race. No one is scared to say that dog breeds have different temperaments and the same applies to the different breeds of human. I am talking about race alone and not ethnicity, nationality or culture. At the end of the day I don't see humans as being anything more than intelligent animals, who have developed religions in order to cope with the fact that they're scared of their own death. It's not polite to say so but I believe it's essentially true.

There are differences of magnitude in terms of racial differences. Black people for example are genetically different from the rest of humanity to a greater degree than any non-black people, who are all more closely related to each other than they are to black people.

It is also worth noting that the differences between men and women, not only physically but most critically psychologically, are more significant than the differences between people of different races.--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Race is a social construct. It does not require your thinking it to be truth. There are genetic difference between people, but there's litterally no connection between the races we assign people to and the genetics of those people. Chinese people have more genetic similarity to Swedish people than do people from two neighboring African tribes; and yet we call both members of the African tribes the same race, and the Swede and the Chinese person of different races. Bashar al-Assad is an Arab because he self-identifies as an Arab, was born into an Arabic culture, speaks a an Arabic language, etc. Any other definition, based largely on what you believe he should look like based on your own limited belief of what Arabs should look like is completely irrelevent. It doesn't mean that being an Arab is an invalid classification, or that he is or isn't one; its just that you need to understand where the definitions of cultural groups come from, and genetics isn't it... --Jayron32 23:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The idea that "race does not exist" sounds like it's an attempt by some to eliminate all ammunition from racists. It's usually accomplished by comparing all genes from all groups, in which case you find a minuscule portion of them which vary by race. However, if you only look at those genes which do vary primarily by race, like skin color, eye color, hair color, hair texture, the sickle-cell anemia gene, the Tay-Sachs gene, etc., then it certainly isn't true that, for those genes, "Chinese people have more genetic similarity to Swedish people than do people from two neighboring African tribes". And how could it ? Certainly people who live near each other are far likelier to interbreed and thus have common genes than those on the opposite sides of the planet, at least for those genes which have recently "arrived" via mutations. Then there's also the effect that some genetic mutations are selected for in certain climates and against in others, like sickle cell genes being helpful in areas with endemic malaria but harmful elsewhere.

So why has the idea that "races do not exist" perpetuated, despite racial distinctions being used in medicine, anthropology, etc. ? Mainstream scientists don't want to go on record as saying that races exist, for fear of being called racists.

Of course, many incorrect racial distinctions have been made in the past, such as saying that morality and intelligence is based largely on race. However, this in no way means that all racial distinctions are invalid, like the chances of suffering from certain medical conditions. StuRat (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

bizarre racist/sexist/beer off topic stuff
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Big Sister is all those groups which express female characteristics, and thus employ female procedures. Even if you are a white male, you are expressing female characteristics (i.e. unscientific and antiscientific thought). It is noted that non-white males express female characteristics but even some white males express female characteristics i.e. homosexuals, white males who take non-white women as partners, leftists, Marxists, feminists, etc. Darwin: "It is generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilisation." and Since males vary more than females, and some males possess female characteristics, the situation arises in which some males express female characteristics very strongly. This is the explanation why the best chefs are male, even though – because of their higher sensitivity to taste, smell etc. – females are generally better at cooking. Similarly, some females express male characteristics but this is probably less common, for the simple reason that females with male characteristics will tend to produce fewer children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by X sprainpraxisL (talk • contribs) 00:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Females cannot tolerate naked masculinity. If a male said, "I want all black men who have sex with white women to die with a rope around their neck, I want to have sex with every hot woman I see, and drink Carlsberg Special Brew whilst posting on vnnforum.com", a female would likely be repelled. The reason any white male would oppose this is because they are feminized (i.e. adapted to feminine standards). Argue with millions of years of evolution at your peril. —Preceding unsigned comment added by X sprainpraxisL (talk • contribs) 00:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC) If you have a point, you are not making it very clear. It reads like bigoted nonsense. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC) @X sprainpraxisL: Huh? --Jayron32 01:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC) I think the clue is in X sprainpraxisL's latest posting: "Carlsberg Special Brew"... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Nope, I'm three Yeunglings into the night, and it still made no sense to me. Unless the "special" involves some chemicals not present in my beer, I'm still flumoxed. --Jayron32 01:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC) I suspect that Special Brew may contain chemicals unknown to science - mainly because it induces intoxication on sight, rendering analysis impossible. The favourite tipple of the English homeless, along with (ironically) Tennant's Lager. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Aaaand I think that's enough of that. I don't see any real question there, just racist/sexist soap boxing. No thanks, buddy. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the "hatnote" to reintroduce the open discussion. In general, if you let a little off-topic blather close off a thread, you make trolls more powerful than honest participants.

Now to begin with, Bashar al-Assad is the son of Hafez al-Assad, who lived in the upper northwest corner of Syria and was an Alawi. Now Alawi has tribes, but it is a religious minority rather than a race according to the article, so I don't know, but it may be that he is one of the many Syrians who are not Arabs. More broadly (since I'm sure there's a gradient between races) look at a map and you'll notice a few things about Syria: it's not in Africa, it's not on the Arabian peninsula, and it is on the Mediterranean. The Mediterranean was the main highway for thousands of years and the people north and south and east of it were quite free to move around and mingle. For example, Alexander, from Macedonia, built Alexandria, and the Western Roman Empire was as much an African empire as a European one. Likewise Turkey and Greece were a single civilization on the shores of the Adriatic. So there's no reason for someone from Syria to look like he came from, say, Mecca, rather than somewhere in southeastern Europe.

Now for the moment I'll leave the sexual stuff out - there's been a whole lot of speculation about sexual differences for a very long time, and in our current society, with as many women in technical professions as men, it sounds like it didn't add up to a hill of beans. But the situation with race should be dealt with openly. It is clear that yes, there are local genetic differences in genes representing physical appearance. You can tell what race someone is from a genetic test. But it's not easy - not every gene, nor most genes, are affected. People can learn to look for racial features and recognize where someone came from, but everyone, from any race, has a face, and all the parts work the same as anyone else's. (Well, except maybe the earwax) When you look at the details, you see trends - blood group B absent from Native Americans, common in Northern India - but these trends don't really go anywhere - it's just random assortment from place to place. There just hasn't been enough time for any really serious evolution - you're not finding many brand new genes in different parts of the world, just random shuffles. When you do find something new it is so small, so trivial, a base pair or two here or there, no one seriously believes it matters.

Last but not least, the spell. From Gregory the Great: "Non Angli, sed Angeli". It has a special power to drive out the demons of racism, probably now more than ever. Wnt (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Race is a 'political concept, not a scientific one. The concept of race predates science by several millennia, and is basically an attribution concept: people from other tribes are conceived to be qualitatively different simply by virtue of being from other tribes, and thus they can be killed, enslaved, oppressed or etc. in ways that people from our tribe should not be. In fact, this is still essentially the way that race is used in the modern western world: racial problems always reduce to a fear that "that group" (whomever 'that' might be) is more likely to rob us, bomb us, do violence against us, or etc. (whomever 'us' might be) and so 'we' need to take stronger measures against 'them' (preemptive violence, indefinite imprisonment or excessive punishment, unequal application of law or outright oppression...) so that we can control or destroy the threat they represent. Genetics has been applied to the already extant concept of race in a speculative fashion - with no real scientific evidence to support it - because it seems like it ought to fit our preconceived notions on the matter. silliness. --Ludwigs2 17:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Ludwigs2, that's a very insightful way to look at it: That there are genetic differences between races doesn't necessarily mean that races themselves are not a social contruct. There are other genetic differences by which we could group people, but do not, and that arbitrary racial groups have a coincidental genetic component does not make them less arbitrary. I like that line of reasoning. --Jayron32 18:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: There are differences between ethnic groups in that certain ethnic groups are more likely to have certain characteristics than others. However, the division of ethnic groups into three or four or five "races" is more or less artificial. Putting Bangladeshis in the same "race" as Hungarians and in a different category from the Burmese is clearly a social construct. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd even say that's sketchy. Ethnic groups are just races more finely divided. Its the exact same issue. What makes someone French is not their genetics per se, although certain genes may predominate in France through nothing more than the accident that, on the balance, historically French people tended to have sex with other French people. It is their relationship to the French culture and the French state. There's nothing about the genes that makes people French (or Hungarian, or Bangladeshi), those definitions are based solely on socio-cultural mechanisms, not on genetic mechanisms. You can't seriously claim that, for example, Prince William isn't English, even though much of his ancestry, prior to a certain date, lived in other countries. At what magical date does residency in a culture change you genetically to become part of that ethnicity? --Jayron32 19:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The best way to put this is that while there are clearly genetic differences between more-or-less isolated groups of humans (e.g., there are genetic variations across the population of humans which produce differing amounts of melanin in human skin), there is almost no evidence that such genetic differences correlate with conventional notions of race, there is almost no evidence that such genetic differences correlate with any differences in cognition or behavior, and there is literally no evidence that conventional notions of race correlate with differences in cognition or behavior, mediated by genetics. Genetics is (scientifically speaking) a powerful red herring. Lot of smoke poured out on this topic; very little fire. --Ludwigs2 20:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The "race is a social construct" is something of a red herring itself - the meaning of the sentence is that race is defined socially, not that it doesn't have any genetic basis at all; but that basis is made up of really trivial stuff. An example of the social definition with real-world consequences is the race of Hispanics, which was actually only invented a few decades ago. In the weird world of American race, Hispanic is dominant to black, which is dominant to white. So, as far as I understand it, whenever a Hispanic man in the U.S. has children with a black or white woman, or vice versa, the children are all "Hispanic". In light of this it is unsurprising that Hispanics are "America's fastest-growing minority"! But the way that this plays in the press, in the general population of the country, is with an image that "the entire country is being taken over by Hispanics", who are in turn assumed to be illegal immigrants from Mexico. This has whipped up some of the less friendly parts of the white community into a frothing mad fury - but I think they're being whipped up by a bogus statistic that comes from an unreasonable definition! Wnt (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, none of that is exactly true. First of all, the U.S. census, insofar as it represents the closest thing we have to "official" definitions of these sorts of things, doesn't treat Hispanics as a race. It treats Hispanics as different category of existance, the only other part of that category, according to the U.S. census, is "not Hispanic". I wish I was making that up, really I do. Race is a seperate category, thus one can be both black and hispanic (as someone from the Dominican Republic is likely to be) or white and hispanic (as someone from, say Cuba is likely to be). They also place absolutely no requirements or instructions on how you are to answer the questions; it is purely self-identification. Thus, they don't require you to call yourself "Hispanic" if your last name is Garcia or Hernandez; if you don't feel particularly "Hispanic", you are free to answer "not Hispanic." Likewise, if your name was something like "Fox" or "O'Higgins", and you feel that you are "Hispanic", you are free to enter "Hispanic" for yourself. And before we jump to any conclusions, ask yourself how Vicente Fox and Bernardo O'Higgins might answer that question. this is the full form used in 2010. Its only 10 questions, and questions 8 and 9 are the relevent ones. The definition, according to the U.S. census, of what you are is "What do I think I am?" Ultimately, its the only one that matters. --Jayron32 05:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That also allowed Obama to put down that he was just black on his census, even though he is half white and was indeed raised by his Irish American mother's side of the family. Same with Phil Lynott and Bob Marley; both of them were half black and half white, but everyone thought of them simply as being black (in Lynott's case, black-African instead of black Irish). So yes, it can be rather arbitrary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

All of that can be true, without being bad. It's actually quite a good thing that it works this way. Race and ethnicity (and in America, whatever Hispanic means) is about how a person relates to their culture, and to other cultures. Race (and the rest) is about how you are treated, how you relate to others, how you feel about your place, etc, as it relates to the particular definitions of race (and the rest) in your current situation. No one, who isn't you, can tell you how you fit into society. Only you can figure that out for yourself. So, that President Obama fits into society as a black man has nothing to do with how you, or I, or anyone else should decide how he should fit in. We can't say "Society doesn't treat you like a black man because your Mother is of Irish and English decent". How do we get the right to decide how Obama relates to his society and culture? We don't. Only he knows how he fits in, which is why only he can answer that question for himself. --Jayron32 22:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And that's enhanced now that we don't force people like Homer Plessy to declare themselves black. I happen not to particularly care what he calls himself, I care more about things like his policies, and I think most Americans would agree with that. As much as we talk about racial discrimination and what-not, we (at least in North America) really have come a long way from where we once were. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights -- according to the old "one-drop rule" (which still has cultural influence in the U.S., though no longer legally binding), Obama would be considered obligatorily black. The option to declare yourself multiracial was only added to the census in 2000. I'm sure Obama doesn't have the slightest wish to deny or insult his mother and mother's family, but he long ago came to terms with the fact that most people would consider him to be black according to conventional U.S. cultural categories, and he married a woman who is indisputably black according to conventional U.S. definitions etc., so it's not too realistic to expect him to redefine his identity at this late date... AnonMoos (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

May 1

Wendi Deng

why she married Rupert Murdoch, i mean a person who is 40 years older that her? --HoulGhostjj (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Because she wanted to. --Jayron32 05:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

After his money, clearly. (I hope the OP gets irony.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether she married him for love or money (or both) is no one's business but hers and his. Still, women marrying very rich, much older men is a tradition that must be millennia old. Another recent example is Anna Nicole Smith, who married a man 62 years older than her. —Angr (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a link to Age disparity in sexual relationships is called for here. Dismas|^(talk) 09:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there an old adage 'December sees Spring in May and May sees Christmas in December'? Dru of Id (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan politician wearing vests?

What's with Taiwan politicians always wearing vests with their names on it? When did this start? Is this done in other cultures? F (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

same reason that US politicians all wear flag pins - it's symbolic/expected. --Ludwigs2 18:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

They're political campaign vests. A jacket saying 'vote for me'. Nanonic (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

In the UK it has become popular for politicians, especially very senior ones, to visit factories or schools or even conventions without a jacket and with the sleeves rolled up. The purpose presumably is to give the impression that they are "working hard" and/or "down there with the ordinary people". If only! Caesar's Daddy (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Prince William's medal

Does anyone know, specifically, what medal Prince William when he's in dress military uniform? Swarm ^X 09:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal. Proteus (Talk) 09:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's one up from a Blue Peter badge. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oxford Group

The Oxford Group, it says, was founded by a Lutheran pastor, but is the group itself a "sub-group" of Lutheranism? If a person follows most of the group's ideas, is the person a Lutheran more or less? Geschichte (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the group had ideas that were not in sync with Lutheran doctrine. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Encouraging diplomats to defect

Hi, I'm wondering... if I contact ambassadors, consular officers or other diplomats from repressive regimes serving here in my country (Australia) and encourage them to abandon their brutal masters and seek political asylum here in Australia, am I breaking any laws?

What will be the likely reaction of the Australian government? Need I fear any repercussions to myself?

Also, why is this (attempting to encourage defections) not done more often - either by governments of human rights groups?203.45.95.236 (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless it ends up as actual harassment, you're most likely to be ignored. However, encouraging people to defect is not that easy. Diplomats are typically doing fairly well in their home country. Moreover, they will most likely have been pre-screened for reliability. And they will have their own justification for serving their government - they may disagree about the "brutal and oppressive", or they may view this as unfortunate but necessary, or as the lesser of two evils compared to the alternative (which, very often, is not Swedish model democracy, but another oppressive regime). That said, I always thought that for the money the Iraq war consumes, you could probably give a few million to each insurgent, give them Skiing lessons, and resettle them to Aspen, Colorado. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly likely to discurage more people from becoming insurgents. Googlemeister (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ambassadors defecting usually happens when their country's government is collapsing and they want to get out while they can (that's what's happened with Libyan ambassadors recently). As long as their home country is still working well, they probably aren't going to be persuaded by a few letters. --Tango (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I normally despise respondents asking OPs things like "Why do you care?" or "What does it matter?". But in this case, I'm tempted. Surely the ambassador can get exactly the same news and information about their country that's available to you, and probably a whole lot more that's not available to you. If they were remotely minded to defect, they know the diplomatic channels to approach, better than you do (unless you just happen to work for DFAT), and the only encouragement they're likely to pay any attention to would be trusted friends or colleagues of theirs, not random strangers. If I were an ambassador being encouraged to defect by a total stranger I'd never even met, from the country I was being encouraged to defect to, I'd be extremely suspicious, which would tend to negate any thoughts of defection I was already having. But that's just me. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Note... if you are a citizen of the nation with the repressive regime, and are encouraging one of your own diplomats to defect away from your country ... the regime might well charge you with a crime (such as treason). Blueboar (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Any guesses someone makes on the impact to yourself and the reaction of the Australian government would be pure speculation, because we don't know how things would play out. Encouraging defection, especially on the part of a government, would be a very risky move. Said government would probably, assuming they permit free speech (and if they don't... why defect?), receive quite a lot of flak from within as well as without. sonia♫ 20:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Particularly if we are talking about the embassy of a large country say China, I doubt the ambassador will even see the letter. I'm pretty sure that as with many people in high positions, they don't actually read all the mail addressed to them. Someone else opens it and reads it and does whatever they think is best (which may occasionally mean sending it on to the ambassador). In the case of a letter encouraging the ambassador to defect they probably aren't going to send it on to the ambassador, far more likely they are just going to junk it or perhaps send a reply defending their country (perhaps getting the ambassador to sign it probably still without bothering to show them the original letter, perhaps not ) and perhaps also send it to their security person if they think the person is a security threat (not because they think the person is going to convince the ambassador to defect but because they fear the person who sent it may harm them in some way). P.S. For those who saw the Chaser's War on Everything episode where they snuck into the APEC security cordon dressed as Osama bin Laden will know in the same episode they tried to get the Chinese consulate to pay for bullets to assassinate Hu Jintao, I don't think anything happened from this other then getting kicked out of and perhaps banned from the Chinese consulate. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Consult a solicitor Fifelfoo (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If Australia still finds it useful to have diplomatic relations with such countries, then they would want these countries to be represented by diplomats in their embassies. So, if you were to convice diplomats to defect, that would only frustrate your own government. Count Iblis (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Time travel - becoming a historical figure

I'm not a big fiction reader. Has anyone ever written a story about someone traveling back in time to become a historical person? Like if someone traveled to ancient Macedonia and switched their baby with the son of Phillip II of Macedon. This would mean their own son would grow up to become Alexander the Great. Or, a person adept in an ancient language traveled to the past to become the hero they read about in history books. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This TVtropes page mentions a few examples of "person goes back in time to become significant figure"; it's not historical, which I think you were looking for, but Night Watch pulls the trick off very well. Shimgray | talk | 21:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That example is fine. I was just wondering if anyone had done it before. Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Several writers of Science Fiction, in which Time travel is a popular theme, have used plot devices of this type (time-traveller becoming historical figure): just off the top of my head, there's Michael Moorcock's Behold the Man; Robert Silverberg's Up the Line; and Harry Harrison's The Technicolor Time Machine. I have purposely refrained from giving any details of those works to avoid giving you or others spoilers, but you may choose to follow the links and read their individual articles, which themselves hopefully do not over-spoil the works. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.100 (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

An interesting twist on this theme is Simon Hawke's TimeWars... at one level, the novels are standard "time commandos" trope (a team of police/military types are sent into the past to prevent the bad guys from changing history)... but each novel also follows the basic plot of a classic work of fiction (Ivanhoe, The Three Musketeers, The Prisoner of Zenda, etc.). The time travelers end up becoming main characters in those fictional works. Blueboar (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

In one of my editor rejection letters for my own novel (stating that it was too common of a plot), I was given that series along with a list of about 20 other books that involve replacing historical figures with people from the future as that was a key plot element in my novel. I figured that if you have access to all humans throughout time, it would become trivial to find someone with duplicate dna (a dude) and use that person to replace someone. It is so common, that Paul McCartney is replaced just to show how it works at a "take a vacation in a historical person's life" resort. -- kainaw™ 12:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A fairly early example was in Poul Anderson's Time Patrol series (an agent becoming Cyrus of ancient Persia, greatly helped along by timeline inertia or rebound -- the idea that except at certain critical points, history tends to resist being changed in any major way). AnonMoos (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There was at least one episode of Quantum Leap where the lead character, Sam, 'leaps' into the body of a historical figure. The one that comes to mind is where he leaps into the body of Buddy Holly. Dismas|^(talk) 02:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

He did that a lot, I seem to recall the network thought it boosted ratings (I don't remember Buddy Holly, but he did become Elvis and Lee Harvey Oswald, at least). Adam Bishop (talk)

I have read quite a few books where the female protogist is hypnotised and regressed back to her past life as an historical person such as Maud de Braose and the Countess of Buchan.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

However, alleged memory of past lives is not really the same as "active" time travel into the past. AnonMoos (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There was a Star Trek Deep Space 9 episode where this happened and the captain ended up as some kind of historical revolutionist. Googlemeister (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I can only very dimly remember the specifics of The Stainless Steel Rat Saves the World, and I think the time travel rather convolutes things. But if memory serves the hero is chasing a time meddler named "He", and I'm almost certain I remember a cliffhanger (perhaps from the 2000AD rendering of it) where the characters are shocked to discover that some historical figure (my 30 year old memory says Oliver Cromwell, the article suggests Napoleon) is really He. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 15:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If memory serves, The Star Diaries by Stanisław Lem dealt extensively with time paradoxes in several chapters, including one chapter in which a 'time patrol' had agents going rogue and becoming many of the worst historical despots. Dru of Id (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Smokey Clegg

hello was in the paper today as well that Nick Clegg is still smoking is there a way yo find out which brand he smoke?? and if not is it a ligitimite freedom of information act to find out so? Thank You Sally james langley (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt very much that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 applies to which brand of cigarettes Clegg smokes, as he is not a 'public body' (e.g. a government department, school, council etc). If he smokes, he does so in a private capacity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It does not seem to me that it would be a valid freedom of information request - the FOI legislation is designed to allow documents held by government bodies to be released to the public, not to acquire information on the personal habits of politicians. Were the Cabinet Office to be buying the cigarettes for him, then there might be a FOI aspect, but otherwise he himself isn't FOIable! Shimgray | talk | 21:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• It is definitely not a valid FOI request, as no public body 'holds' the relevant information (Clegg buys his own ciggies, I'm assuming, rather than having the Cabinet Secretary nip out to the corner-shop for him) This guidance from the Information Commissioner's Office has the technical details. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 22:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Nick Clegg smokes Silk Cuts, I believe. See This article from the telegraph. Hope this helps! 119.225.16.46 (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Painting in The Other Guys

Anyone know the title/artist of this painting, seen in the movie The Other Guys?Reflectionsinglass (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know but it reminds me of the work of John Martin. I couldn't find a matching image but it might be worth investigating.

May 2

List of locations of polling places in last Czech Parliamentary elections?

Is there anywhere a comprehensive list of locations of polling places can be found for the latest Czech parliamentary elections? Thanks.--128.54.224.231 (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question. I poked around a bit online and couldn't find anything comprehensive. Apparently the mayor of the municipality a voter lives in will inform them of their specific voting place at least 15 days before the election. Voting locations are also published in September newspapers and in the town halls of cities within the Czech Republic. FUTURI (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If the Czech Republic has an equivalent of the UK's Freedom of Information Act 2000 then I suspect that would be your best bet? ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 21:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting... Apparently brief internet research indicates that there is a FOIA from around the same time yet it seems like one must be a citizen to make any sort of request. As such it seems like archival research would be best using newspapers (or asking a citizen to do all the paperwork for you). This would be a difficult undertaking however. Thanks anyways.--128.54.224.231 (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: Ok, so I found this website here. When you click on a region, say Praha (Prague), it lists municipalities and next to it, it counts wards. I know these wards are not more specific as to location like I originally asked, but is a ward represent one polling place. Any idea what ward means in this context? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.224.231 (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Teen views on same sex marriage

There are many polls that break down support of same sex marriage by age bracket, and not surprisingly, the younger respondents are more supportive. However, I've yet to see a poll that includes the 13-17 year old group. Based on the pattern, I'd predict that teens are more tolerant of same sex marriage than young adults, but does anyone have data that supports/refutes this hypothesis? --140.180.16.144 (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

13-17 year olds tend to be more tolerant of many things such as the absolute wisdom of the latest pop-idol. bearing in mind that the human brain is usually not fully formed untill one reaches the 20s much less gathered wisdom, it seems reasonable that the lower age groups might not be the best place to seach for informed guidence.190.56.17.88 (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The upper age groups aren't good places to seek guidance either--they're just old and senile miscreants with outdated views. The middle-age group should be ignored, too, because they're too busy getting mid-life crises to think rationally about the wider world. While we're at it, we should avoid the young adults, because they're frantically looking for jobs and likely to promote whatever political views get them richest the fastest, and have no time to be idealistic.

My point is that we should judge a person's opinions on a case-to-case basis instead of using sweeping generalizations. I'm very sure that for every social issue I've ever thought about, at least one teen in the world has pondered it more rationally and more objectively than me. I respect the opinions of everybody who is willing and able to justify them, regardless of age or any other physical characteristic. In fact I've often succeeded in having intellectual conversations with teens on "sensitive" topics, whereas the adults I tried to discuss them with simply accused me of insulting their beliefs and refused to continue the conversation. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that was magnificent! And I've had much the same experiences myself comparing teenagers and adults. DuncanHill (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The OP didn't say that they were looking to 13-17 year olds for guidance. Just data from surveys of that age group. Dismas|^(talk) 03:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thank you.17.88190.56.17.88 (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Dismas is correct: I was just looking for data, not for guidance. However, I thought that your post was insulting enough to warrant a response. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me that some jurisdictions may have child-protection laws which would have the effect of discouraging (not necessarily explicitly) the inclusion of minors in opinion polls and statistical surveys of social attitudes, either in general or just on certain subjects including those related to sexual activity. Similar considerations of informed consent may be covered by the research ethics of those engaged in social research. If so, there may simply be few surveys which have gathered this sort of data from the age group in question. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.85 (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Time Urgent-- help us find a list of companies that supported Jim Crow?

We need a list of companies that supported Jim Crow laws or came under boycott as part of the civil rights movement. For example, this story on the National Civil Rights Museum shows the Montgomery Bus Boycott exhibit[8], their bus carries a Pepsi-Cola ad suggesting that company was a sponsor-- but obviously, I want a source, not an inference.

What other companies that still exist fell under boycott? Please help. Time urgent and for a good cause. --Tangledorange (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The article Rosa Parks does not imply that the boycott was against any particular company or companies, but against the state law. Similarly, I think you will find it difficult to find any companies that were explicitly either for against this law. No doubt there were individuals who spoke out both for and against segregation, but few people would have regarded it as appropriate for companies to say or do anything one way or another. In particular, I think your assumption that Pepsi-Cola "sponsored" the Jim Crow laws is misplaced: they were a company who advertised on buses amongst other places. Until Rosa Parks made her famous stand, there was nothing political about buses, and even after there was nothing about one particular bus company as against others. --ColinFine (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's my understanding too, but I know boycott was too powerful a tool for the civil rights movement to have limited it to buses. --Tangledorange (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The article Rosa Parks speaks only of the "Montgomery Bus Boycott", and makes no mention of boycotting anything else. This strongly implies that only buses were boycotted. It's possible he was concerned about Coke's local bottler or distributor rather than the Atlanta company. --ColinFine (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Greensboro sit-ins famously began at a lunch counter in a Woolworths, but I wouldn't take that to mean that Woolworths the company explicitly supported the segregation legislation - they may have agreed with it, they may have hated it but tolerated it as the price of doing business, and we just can't tell. You may be able to find some examples of firms that chose not to do business in the South due to opposition to the laws (though it would take some digging), but it'd be much harder to find a major corporation that explicitly and publicly stated its support for the legislation. Shimgray | talk | 23:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous "I've Been to the Mountaintop" speech, given a day before he died, he encouraged Memphis residents to boycott Coca-Cola, Wonder Bread, Sealtest milk and something called Hart's Bread because of unfair hiring practices. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I remember seeing a picture of a cannery company in Alaska in the 1890s with a sign that said "Negroes need not apply". Not a major corporation, but a rather strong hint towards their tendencies. And they were in Alaska, it's not like they would have been pressured into it from being surrounded by Southern businesses all doing the same thing. And what's funny is that, while all these Jim Crow laws were at their worst, some black people in the deep South were actually able to get favors from governors (see Lead Belly), so Jim Crow wasn't always the bright-line rule it's portrayed as. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Online Korean Language courses - where, please?

Also, for anything less than $225/credit-hour, please? (Coming from a Kansan resident.) A Korean class has been elusive for me, especially an online one.

ONLINE Korean Language courses - where, please?

I hope to take a Korean class online, as they're hard to come by. As in-state tuition for me is $222.40 at my university, I hope to find one for less than that. Please link me to some good leads. Thanks. --129.130.96.232 (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Online Comm Courses

Moreover, what are some communications classes online that I can take through a community college (or other places that'll, for me, cost less than $220/credit-hour?) (I already took Public Speaking, so maybe Interpersonal Communication, Persuasion, and whatever could teach me to negotiate myself to better positions in life. --70.179.169.115 (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are christians happy that Osama Bin Laden is dead?

I thought their religion teaches them to love their enemies. Isn't this part of their religion? I am confused. 69.68.161.178 (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You are a little confused. There are many kinds of Christianity, and many Christian opinions within these kinds. Some Christians are upset about the assassination of Osama bin Laden for religious reasons, others for political reasons. Some are celebrating the assassination of Osama bin Laden for political or nationalist reasons; and, a smaller minority for religious reasons. In addition, many of the people celebrating his killing who aren't Christian are doing so for political or nationalist reasons. Many people, many views, many reasons. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Because terrorists gave up their claim to humanity (in some of their views anyways). Googlemeister (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of the New Testament is that you can't ever give up your claim to humanity, whatever you do. Love the sinner, hate the sin, etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) :Many, many Christians are not happy that he is dead. They see this passage: "Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when they stumble, do not let your heart rejoice, or the LORD will see and disapprove" as being true and applicable in this case. (Proverbs 24: 17,18) --TammyMoet (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As others have said, clearly not all Christians are happy over his death. From our own article on the death:

Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi said that while Christians "do not rejoice" over a death, bin Laden's death serves to remind them of "each person's responsibility before God and men," expressing hope that bin Laden's death "would not be an occasion for more hate, but for peace." The Vatican went on to say that Osama bin Laden must answer to God for having killed an innumerable number of people and exploiting religion

Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks it is a troll post? --Reference Desker (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think people are celebrating the removal of a person who had thrown down the gauntlet against the western world and therefore made it impossible for innocent people (be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, athiest, pagan, Wiccan, Satanist, whatever) to travel in planes, the metro, by train or to even feel safe in their own streets, towns and cities. It's not "nice" to threaten people, you know.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not necessarily a troll. Consider it from the other side... After 9/11, the news media directed at Christians focused heavily on showing anyone who looked anything like a Muslim having a huge celebration. Many Christians asked why the Muslims are celebrating the deaths of so many people. Now, I'm sure that the news media directed at Muslims is focused heavily on showing anyone who looks anything like a Christian having a huge celebration. Many Muslims will certainly ask why Christians are celebrating the death of another human. In both cases, the root of the evil is the news organizations that are truly focused on making money in any way possible - mainly through exploitation of ignorance. -- kainaw™ 14:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that true? One of the images I remember from the reporting on 9/11 was a crowd of Iranian women in full hijab chanting "America! Condolences! America! Condolences!". Anyway, I as a Christian cannot feel happy that Bin Laden is dead, however much as an American I feel like I'm supposed to. Although I utterly disagree with both his ends and his means, joy is not what I'm feeling today. I will feel joy if Obama takes this opportunity withdraw American troops from Afghanistan, though I'm not holding my breath. Pais (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some media outlets (particularly right-leaning) loved to show footage of various Middle-Eastern people burning American flags and celebrating the attacks in the days after Sept. 11. The more centrist stations also showed various nationalities who offered their condolences.

And I have many family members & co-workers who are happy bin Laden is dead. I caught a bit of flak from family & co-workers for posting that above scripture quote to my Facebook page. I'm actually atheist, but I feel we should never celebrate a death, even a necessary one. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Another possibility is it's not a troll but still not a genuine question, e.g. a person trying to make the point that it's a flawed idea to use some members of a religion as representative of the whole religion. Note that I'm not suggesting we not discuss the question because of it. Nil Einne (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

1) Not all Americans are really christian, and many Christians aren't observant. Americans are _everything_. Young people in big cities especially tend to be secular or some other religion. When we see the huge crowd on TV, we assume American Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus are all probably in that crowd. 2) I think some Americans do feel a little 'weird' about celebrating a human death-- but bin laden caused so much pain, people are feeling joy that that evil is gone. --Tangledorange (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There were some Muslims dancing in the streets on 9/11, while others (including Arafat) expressed shock and horror at what happened. Last night there were also Muslims dancing in the streets at the death of that evil being. As one of them said, Osama bin Laden had caused a great deal of harm to Muslims in America and around the world. While it may not be right to celebrate one man's death, it is a war we're in, and which we have to win. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Tangledorange's answer is correct on both counts. I should elaborate that I think much of the rejoicing is not directly because people had been afraid of terrorism - I don't think they were, and the threat at least right now may be higher than ever. But it's a hope that after a whole decade of security lunacy, trillion dollar wars, and a whole new kind of Cold War mentality, that this death might inexplicably bring about a return to sanity and prosperity, as inexplicably as people allowed the original attack to cause all those things in the first place. Wnt (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I think it's more of a relief than anything. We've been waiting over 9 years to deal with that guy who harmed us so badly. He's like Hitler, in being a good, visible scapegoat for everything bad that's happened in America and around the world during the past decade. It appears that Pakistan double-crossed us at every turn, until we finally got wise and did it ourselves (don't ask why it took us 9 years to figure that out). Even though al-Qaeda will surely go on, their founder is gone, and there's no grave for them to rally around. And as soon as the next guy takes over, he'll be hunted down and killed too, and maybe the followers might start to get a clue. It's to be hoped that this is the beginning of the end of this situation, this "war on terror" or whatever to call it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Very few people derive their morals from the nominal tenets of their religion. Most inherit it from their society and then pick and chose some parts of the faith that can be used to support this pre-existing framework.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly a theologian here, but I think that it might be possible to love one's enemy and want them to be brought to justice for their crimes at the same time. I don't think there are any Christian societies that have interpreted the command to love one's enemies to mean that criminals should not be punished. (Although some may view that as a reason not to have the death penalty or torture criminals) Many Christians do view mass-murder as a capital offence, not sure if that's because of a specific bible verse or societal conditioning. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Different people interprete Christianity differently. Constantine the Great and Catherine de' Medici would have little use for Thou shalt not kill, or for turning the other cheek. The Quakers and Jehova's Witnesses interprete this part of the teaching more strictly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Very true, it's a good reason why one shouldn't make generalizations about members of any given religion. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere does it ever say that loving one's enemy means condoning any of their actions. When you forgive someone, it means you've stopped hating them for doing whatever it was they did that hurt you, it doesn't mean the hurt didn't happen in the first place, nor does it mean that the person is suddenly relieved of responsibility for making whatever amends are possible and necessary. When you go to Confession (or whatever they call it these days; Reconciliation, I think), and the priest asks you to say 10 Hail Marys and forgives you, you still have to submit yourself to whatever legal processes are necessary if there's any breach of the law involved, and take whatever punishment or pay whatever fine the state decides is appropriate; or, if it's a private matter, you still have to apologise to the offended party and build a bridge by demonstrating your regret and your commitment not to reoffend. This distinction between people and their actions means that not even Osama bin Laden was an evil person; he was a person who committed evil deeds, and deserved whatever punishment was appropriate for those deeds. If you start a war, you run the risk of being killed. It's that simple. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The simple answer to this question is that the world is full of people of all races and religions who are ignorant enough to get excited over pointless violence. Bin Laden's death changes nothing, the war on terror has changed nothing, even 9/11 didn't really change anything - but for some reason they each made different people feel good about themselves. It reminds me of an old apocalyptic science fiction book (can't remember the name), where the last living act of the last living human on the face of the destroyed planet is to thumb his nose at God. --Ludwigs2 18:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

On a more general note, this article contains an interesting discussion of the psychology of revenge. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Beyond revenge, think "decrease of menace." A man who organized the murder of over three thousand of one's countrymen, in an effort to kill far more, who had demonstrated his malevolence in many attacks over many years, who wished one ill and had every desire to kill one and one's family, is shot dead. What person would not feel great relief and satisfaction at such an event. Jesus Christ would have absolutely "turned the other cheek" after Osama slapped his one cheek. Most people, even followers of Christ, are not really that Christlike. Even his own apostles in his last hours were not Christlike: Judas was a paid traitor and an accessory to murder, one attacked the servant of a Temple official with a sword, Peter denied knowing Jesus repeatedly, all the remaining ones but Thomas locked themselves up in a secure room for fear of physical harm to themselves. They may have been Christians, but they were flawed. Edison (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You've implicitly brought up the divide connected with active killings in general. True "right-to-lifers" will oppose any deliberate taking of human life: abortion, murder, capital punishment, and warfare. The dilemma comes when you're attacked, or more generally, when your loved ones or your society or your homeland are attacked. If someone harms you, you can "turn the other cheek" and forgive. But if someone harms someone else, then the "greater sin" concept comes into play. If an armed robber breaks into your house and you have a gun, do you use it? Strict right-to-lifers might say "No". But then the robber kills you and may kill others later. While it may be a sin to kill him, it's a "greater sin" to allow yourself and your family to be killed. Capital punishment may seem like revenge, but what it really is is permanent removal. Once dead, that person cannot harm anyone again. That's what's going on with OBL. He and/or his organization killed 3,000 Americans directly, and who knows how many other people worldwide. He is now permanently removed, and will never kill again. And that's reasonable grounds for celebration, in my book. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, a true Christian might feel sadness for OBL the human. How did it come to this? What went wrong in his life that turned him into such a hateful, evil being? Those are reasonable questions to ask. But while answers to those questions might explain his behavior, it doesn't excuse it. And to quote Mr. Spock, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." OBL had his life, and he had a choice to be in the right. He chose to be in the wrong, and ultimately he chose the way he died. Not so for his victims in the WTC and elsewhere around the world. He chose for them. And to allow him to get away with it would be a very great sin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it says somewhere in the Old Testament about an "eye for an eye" and "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword". In the last century, Christianity lost its former fire and fury. All this talk about "loving one's enemy" and "turning the other cheek" is nauseating, and that's putting it mildly. The people celebrating in the streets are glad a major threat to their own lives and the lives of their families has been removed. It's normal. As it was normal for Europeans and Americans to have celebrated the end of World War II. As I have said before, it is not wise to threaten people. They will retaliate. The law of nature is to protect one's own life and those of their loved ones.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the "lives by the sword" is from Matthew 26:52, and it's Jesus telling Petrus what not to do! And while "an eye for an eye" is indeed in the Old Testament, the whole point of Christianity is a New Covenant which gets rid of many of the rules of the Old Testament. That's why Christians don't have to get circumcised, and are allowed to eat a nice pur porc salami, and have cheeseburgers and shrimp cocktails. Oh, and don't have to be Jews. In particular, The Man himself has said (if you believe in the infallibility of the Bible): "You have heard that it was said, Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." (Matthew 5:38-39, NIV). Christians have spend 2000 years finding excuses, but it's very hard to argue that their Christ would support this killing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

C'mon, folks, we're here to provide sourced answers, not argue amongst ourselves over pacifism vs. retaliation on a personal level. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jesus was preaching passive resistance. It worked for Gandhi in India. I seem to recall reading that Gandhi conceded it wouldn't have worked against Nazi Germany. So what would you have us do after 9/11? Nothing? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Actually, there's little doubt in my mind that doing nothing would have been the most effective response to the September 11th attacks. Bury the dead and encourage people to redirect their anger to good causes, such as a national campaign against drunken driving. (Steal the terrorists' one virtue, instead of their vices) If people came together patriotically in such a way, they could save more lives and more monetary damage than Osama inflicted, and it would show the terrorists that all their efforts add up, in sum, to less than nothing. I don't feel like there's any unusual sin in rejoicing at Osama's death, but the way of the saints is better than that of ordinary men. Wnt (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Even among those happy with the hunt, there was some concern with the Wild West approach of Wanted, Dead or Alive. It seemed to place a greater emphasis on the first option. Gosh, even Saddam was captured alive and tried in a court. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I don't believe Jesus was a passive "hippie at Woodstock", barefoot in the park, man of peace and all you need is love, love, love. One only has t recall his violent action in driving the moneylenders out of the temple. Tht took a lot of balls.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I completely agree with Stephan Schulz and Wnt. The simple and obvious lesson of history is that retaliation begets retaliation, violence breeds violence, killing leads to more killing. Bin Laden's assassination does not make us any safer (probably the opposite) and there is certainly no moral justification for celebrating it in any way. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Why does morality have to be dragged into everything? Humans are animals; they have no morals. The idea of morality is a facade invented to pacify us amd to make us feel superior to beasts. We are not. It's a basic instinct of survival to strike at those who pose a danger to ourselves and loved ones. I will confess to having rejoiced when people who were my open and declared enemies died. I don't practice hypocrisy nor shield behind a false code of morals.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Ridiculous nonsense. Humans are reasoning beings, and whenever we treat our fellow humans as reasoning beings like us - which should be all the time - then we are taking a moral stance. All society and civilisation is founded on morality of one form or another. Without morality, all you have is barbarism and savagery. And without morality you have no basis for saying that anything that bin Laden did was even wrong or to talk of "retaliation" in the first place. You do have a moral code, albeit an unattractive one. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC) OBL himself had a "moral code" of some warped variety. We need not care what his "moral code" was, only what his impact on us was. We could sit still and continue to be bullied by the likes of him, or we could take a stand and do something about it. His kind will always be around. That doesn't mean we have to put up with it. And I'm sure Jesus would understand. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC) So let's teach the bullies how not to be bullies by beating them up until they give in. What could possibly go wrong ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC) There's no teaching the likes of OBL to do anything. He made his choices and nothing was going to pursuade him to change his mind or his actions. One of his choices was to be killed, and we obliged him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC) The flaw in the "doing nothing" argument is that you'll eventually end up getting killed anyway, and what good will that do you? Do nothing after 9/11? You may not believe in war, but your enemy does believe in war, and he'll keep on killing your countrymen, upping the ante from tens to hundreds to thousands to hundreds of thousands until he gets your attention. How about doing nothing after the attack on Pearl Harbor? How about doing nothing after the attack on Fort Sumter? How about doing nothing to resist the British in the 1770s? How far back do you take this pacifism theory? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Civilisation is just a facade built around mans' inherent need for law and order, which exists in the animal kingdom. I personally dislike cruelty and abhor violence, yet if one were to threaten me or my chidren's existance, the vestiges of civilisation would drop and barbarism would take over in my natual instinct to protect my offspring. Barbarism is present in all of us. Pacifism is a flimsy excuse not to recognise this. Pacifism is the brave Apollo who denounces war yet has a friend who beats his wife.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I think the argument is that attacking bin Laden allowed him to portray himself as a martyr, and thus attract more recruits. So, ignoring him would hopefully decrease the number of recruits. This is counter to the conventional wisdom that we need to "send them a message". I don't think that works with people who are already suicidal. However, there's also the issue of destroying his capability to make war, by taking out the leadership, training camps, weapons stashes, command and control, etc. This applies as well to terrorism as to conventional warfare. StuRat (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Yes. Ignoring enemies doesn't make them go away, it makes them stronger and more determined, as Europe found out with Hitler. And it's important to keep in mind that this has not just a one-man targeted effort. They've been systematically taking out these characters over the last 10 years, and not just that, but trying to erode their influence as well, like you're saying. Al-Qaeda has not been a "conventional" enemy, but they're an enemy nonetheless. And whether it's wife-beaters or Al-Qaeda, passively enabling them doesn't work. They have to be actively stopped. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Individual anecdotes are not a good guide. Also notice that there are many options between "ignoring" and "shooting" - in fact, most of human intercourse lies in that spectrum. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Careful now. There are many very different questions being mixed up here. The most specific is if the bible passages on "an eye for an eye" and "live by the sword" can be used to justify a violent reaction based on the teachings of Jesus. If you look at the context of these passages, the answer is unequivocally no. The second question is "What would Jesus do". That question is hard to answer, as we have comparatively little information on him, and what we have is highly selective and filtered through millenniums of tradition and interpretation. As Jeanne pointed out, Jesus showed some aggression in the episode with the money lenders, and in the non-canonical Infancy Gospel of Thomas child Jesus slays other children left and right for very minor causes. The third question is what a proper "Christian" reaction would be. That is different again - different strains of Christianity have found ways to accommodate the (perceived) need for secular violence at least since the time of Constantine the Great (of in hoc signo vinces fame). And the fourth question is how we should have reacted. I'd strongly maintain that our answer to the last question should not blindly reflect the opinion of any religion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You've hit upon the ultimate irony - that without the military force of Constantine, it's likely Christianity would have died out, or at least taken much longer to get established. In terms of "purity", Christianity becoming the state religion of the Roman Empire was just about the worst possible outcome. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This hymn sums up Jesus and His teachings perfectly: Onwards Christian soldier...... For a religion to have triumphed from Greece to Ireland, and from Sicily to Norway, and lasted for 2,000 years, someone had to have put the boot in somewhere, no?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What would Jesus do? it seems I know the answer to this and most other questions, so you may as well just go ahead and ask me - apparently.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed Jeanne. Christians have always advocated force in certain circumstances and nothing has changed. Historically popes and bishops have gone to war and military holy orders (Knights Templer, Knights Hospitaller, Teutonic Knights) have joined crusades all in the name of Christ. Even today armies have padres who back up countries' wars and interventions. So the intial questioner asked Why are christians happy that Osama Bin Laden is dead?. So the answer must be why not. A man who was responsible for the killing and maiming of thousands of people around the globe and who was responsible for the continued planning of further attrocities should and had to be brought to book. His death seems an appropriate and measured response. Yes, his death will almost certainly involve so called reprisal outrages but these actions would have been in the pipeline anyway--only now they will be commited in bin Laden's name, but happen they would have anyway. --Bill Reid | (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And what exactly makes your jingoistic pseudo-Christian miltantism any better than bin Laden's jingoistic pseudo-Muslim militantism ? Are they not two sides of the same blood-soaked coinage ? Gandalf61 (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

To borrow your own phrase--ridiculous nonsense. --Bill Reid | (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's rather telling how many Muslims were dancing in the streets after the disposal of that guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)It strikes me that the way Japan and Germany were handled post-war was a practical application of American Christianity. First, crush the enemy. Second, turn the enemy's previously captive citizens into allies/friends by helping them rebuild and to be free of oppression (or as free as they want to be, anyway). This is what they've tried to do in Iraq (the jury is still out on that one), and what was not done after WWI, the US not being powerful enough yet, thus making a Hitler both possible and "necessary" from the German standpoint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't a person who believes in God ascribe credit to God for the defeat of a mortal enemy? Thus any rejoicing is tempered by the mindfulness that it is God who brought about the defeat of an enemy. I think rejoicing is associated with self-satisfaction. The person believing in God is less likely to exuberantly rejoice. I think there would be an abiding fear that God could choose to favor the enemy in the next bout—the rematch could be a real lollapalooza if God looks favorably on your enemy. Bus stop (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you're kind of citing the Jerry Falwell argument - that 9/11 was God punishing us for various sins, such as tolerance of gays, non-Christians, and the New York Yankees. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And the recent tornadoes in Alabama are God's punishment for Bible-Belt fundamentalism? Anyway, Bus stop, I think the reason a Christian does not rejoice in the death of an enemy is that it's sad to consider the fate of someone who has committed terrible sins in his life and apparently never repented of them. Pais (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't exactly addressing the specific question asked, but speaking about "believers" generally. I'm referencing the dynamics of believing in God vis-a-vis warfare and the defeat of an enemy. I would say that "believers" and "non-believers" may tend to view this differently. Or indifferently as the case may be. Bus stop (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As I recall from being forced to read it back in my early teen years, some of the major players in the Iliad (sp?) were the gods who had taken sides. Even though this is presumed to be superstitious behavior, this pagan concept is still around, as expressed by Falwell, et al, and it's a frequent theme in the Bible, especially in the O.T. In the American Civil War, both sides argued that God was on their side, and as Lincoln wisely pointed out, both sides might be wrong, but they can't both be right. Old-fashioned Christians may indeed see the defeat of OBL as some kind of affirmation that God is on our side after all. Others of us see it as being lucky that we have such great resources to carry out such a mission and defeat an enemy of the USA, and that God has nothing to do with it as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The idea of God (or gods) taking sides is dangerous, because it assumes one side is good and one side is evil. But I believe the First Law of Peace is that good and honorable men can come into conflict with one another. In an imperfect world, with imperfect information, where people do what they feel is justly necessary to defend themselves and those they love, they can find themselves at war; yet they can also find a common enlightenment and make peace.

I don't think that we should uncritically accept either face of defeatism - neither that victory by war is impossible because it only begets violence, nor that victory by peace is impossible because violence must crush resistance. History shows the most surprising victories by either means. The Christian martyrs took on Rome and won, at least on the most important points; the civil rights movement took on racism and prevailed the same way. Even more inexplicably, the U.S. fought Japan and Germany and somehow the two emerged as allies without continued violence - something which truly perplexes me, because from first principles I would never have believed that POWs of the Japanese or victims of the Holocaust wouldn't still be stalking those countries making harsh retributions to this very day, less that the Imperialists and the Nazis would have given up their taste for blood.

I think that the largest part of avoiding "gloating" here is not so much whether people are happy or sad, but how they absorb this victory into their view of what to do next in the Middle East. We should recognize that, however abhorrent their attack, the Islamic fundamentalists returned to the U.S. some of our own baser tendencies, as expressed in aid for the Shah of Iran (and as Osama complained, the House of Saud), the near-prisoner status of the Palestinians, the tremendous casualties of the liberation? of Iraq. It would be better to oppose evil when our own country is doing it than to wait until it boomerangs back on us. If people instead think that because they've defeated Osama, they can get away with any crass scheme they think of... well, that may bring more trouble our way even in this life. Wnt (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Suffice to say, there are as many opinions on this as there are people in the world. As pointed out earlier, some Christian sects (ie Quakers) are totally pacifistic and would not endorse the killing of bin Laden; others still adhere to "an eye for an eye" (ie. Fundamentalist Christianity). Most people tend to fall somewhere in between, especially in a Melting pot culture like the USA has. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Dulle Griet/Dull Gret

Online, I can only find reference to the painting by Pieter Brueghel and the cannon, both of which reference a Flemish legend... where can I read more about the legend itself? 165.91.189.35 (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

OK so it's not online but de Dulle Griet bar in Ghent has an ancient cartoon strip which explains one version of the legend: Adam and Eve are in the Garden, and are tempted by the snake to eat an apple. Adam goes first, grows hair and genitalia, and jumps Eve. Eve goes next, and gets mad as hell and takes it out on the snake. Is that the version you're after? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• I found this reference [9] on Google books, for what it's worth. It doesn't quite give the kind of detail I think you're looking for, but it's a start. The phrase "dulle griet folklore" turns up several more results that might be more useful (didn't have time to check through them all).Kafka Liz (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Double Jeopardy

Wikipedia cannot offer legal advice BurtAlert (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A friend of mine has gotten into some legal trouble. He was going to court on his second DUI. He went to a couple of court hearings on the case and the judge orgered him to pay a heafty fine (I think around $1700), 200 hours of community serive and 12 months of probation. He had been paying on his fines, but was yet to sign up for probation. Being as smart as he was, he was still driving around on a suspended driver's lisence. Of course, he was pulled over for having a cracked windshield, and recieved a couple more tickets. When the officer ran his ID, he came back to inform him that he had a warrant out for his arrest for violating his probation. The warrant was sent out from the county court district, the charges that he had been seeing the judge for was a city courthouse. He had just had a court date at the city courthouse a few weeks before this and the judge gave him some more time to sign up for his probation and set a review hearing, which was only a few weeks away. He tried tried explaining this to the officer. How could he have a probation violation when he wasn't signed up yet? Somewhere in all of this, my friend was under the impression that the police officer saw that he was supposed to be on probation and since he was recieving new charges that day, that it would be a probation violation, so the officer made it into a warrant. I don't know how that would work, or if an officer even has that right, but they took him to jail on the warrant. He happened to be in a different county when he was arrested so he endend up waiting for nearly a month before they sent for him to go to court, not to mention that they only knew he was incarcerated because he had a friend call them. After he went to court on the warrant, they gave him time served which cut his community service and fine down, but he still was required to do the 12 months of probation. Needless to say, he missed the review hearing for the city while he was in jail. Since the charges had been moved to the county and he was already sentanced on that case, he didn't think anything of it. They released him from jail, he signed up for his probation and about a week or so later, he recieved a letter stating that he had been issued a warrant from the city for missing his court date! I know about the double jeopardy law and have been researching like crazy. My question I quess would be, is there anyway that the court system can get away with this? After waiting around in jail until his friend called on the case, it makes you wonder if there was a warrant. You would think that if they county was waiting for this guy to be caught, they would be watching for him in all the county jails. Or that the arresting county would notify the other jail to let them know that he was being held there. Maybe the officer did have some way to violate his "probation" and turn it into a warrant. Now he is looking at actually violating his probation on the charges that he's already been sentanced on, twice in a way, the city that had a review hearing set up in just a few weeks and the couny that had him incarcerated which led to him missing his review with the city. I'd appreciate any kind of feed back on this. Thank you for spending your time reading this. Sincerely, Confused ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcracraft (talk • contribs) 19:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC) I have removed the leading whitespace - this is not how paragraphs are marked on Wikipedia and makes things harder to read. 128.232.241.211 (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC) The ref desk cannot give legal advice. You must consult a lawyer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC) As BB has said, we can't give legal advice so this is obviously not legal advice but simply noting something you don't seem to have considered. In particular despite knowing next to nothing about US law I don't see why not signing up for probation by the deadline could not potentially be a probation violation in itself (and is probation violation actually the legal term of just the officer's shorthand?). I could easily see it being a violation of some sort leading up to a warrant [10] Nil Einne (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Again, we can't give out legal advice for your friend's specific situation, because we're just Wikipedia volunteers, not licensed lawyers in your state. That said, this doesn't sound like double jeopardy. People can & do rack up multiple probation violations all the time. Probation is basically just an arrangement where the judge agrees to hold off on sentencing hard prison time, so long as the accused keeps up "good behavior" -- and what counts as good behavior can be very complicated and inflexible. That's the main reason why your friend needs the probation officer. Aside from hiring a criminal defense lawyer (which could really be worth the money at this point!) the probation officers are the only ones who really know the system inside and out, and can help your friend avoid digging a deeper hole. --M@rēino 21:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC) point of observation: the police can do things like this. whether it's entirely legal is something you'll need to hire a lawyer to discover (and it might be worth the $100+ dollars just to get a consultation, because a good lawyer will quickly tell you whether there's any case here to be had). However, I'm not at all surprised by the officer's behavior. Your friend was driving on a suspended license from a second DUI, when it's clear he had not taken the necessary responsible action of getting his parole straightened out - that sets off so many red flags even in my warm&fuzzy liberal brain that I expect the cop was crackling audibly. The cop was surely thinking "This guy is not in control, and I need to get him off the street before he kills someone", and I have a hard time imagining a judge who wouldn't see it that way as well. Your friend has a real uphill battle here. --Ludwigs2 23:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Forts / Fortresses in Medieval Europe

The size of Fortresses could vary I suppose, and thus how many men they could hold would also vary, but in general how many men would you think a fort could hold?

Also how few could the smallest forts hold, and how many could the biggest forts hold? Just to get an idea of the minimum and maximum capacity. I want to make clear that I speak of 'real' fortresses, solid proper fortresses made of solid stone, like in the crusades. And I don't really speak of a citadel or anything like that which was part of a city, where soldiers might live outside, in the city.

Instead, imagine a fort situated somewhere at a frontier, away from cities and towns, but that it is still fully manned because some enemy, or perhaps barbarians or somesuch threatens to attack the kingdom from that direction.

I'm sure that one can squeeze in a lot of men in that fort over a short time, but over a longer period soldiers would live there, sleep there, eat there and patrol the walls, and simply be there in case the enemy shows up, so there has to be some limitation as to how many soldiers a fort could hold. I cannot picture a fort holding... thousand men or more. As I said before they need to sleep there and enough food needs to be available to feed the men etc. I can imagine a fort being able to holding maybe 100 to 300 men over a longer period..?

But since I'm only speculating and do not know for sure, I ask for your opinion :)

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.123.18 (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, from what I know about castles in 12th century England, towns grew up around them, so wouldn't the same thing happen elsewhere? Googlemeister (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Martello tower article says they held from 16 to 26 men, so that could be a lower limit. The Martello towers were designed to have one cannon on the roof. See also Broch. 92.15.8.107 (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

But the Martello tower was late 18th early 19th century. Not from the Middle Ages. Still, it might be a reasonable starting point. Googlemeister (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I for one took that as read. Brochs were Iron-age. 92.15.8.107 (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Caernarfon Castle says "In 1284, Caernarfon was defended by a garrison of forty men, more than the thirty-strong garrisons at Conwy and Harlech. Even in peace time, when most castles would have a guard of only a few men, Caernarfon was defended by between twenty and forty people due to its importance." Caernarfon was one of the most important, and largest, castles in Wales. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're thinking of a literal crusader fortress, you are probably thinking of Krak des Chevaliers, which (according to our article) "may have held about 50–60 Hospitaller knights and up to 2,000 other foot soldiers", plus many hundreds of horses. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Of Edinburgh Castle the article says "A large garrison was installed, 325 strong in 1300"; that's at the very height of a war of which the castle was one of the key targets. In 1341, still a highly contended strongpoint, its garrison was 100 men. By 1688 (a bit later than the period of the question) it was 160 men. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks all of you. Very helpful :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.123.18 (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Princess Royal

If Kate and William have a daughter, will she take over as Princess Royal from Anne, or would that only occur if and when William becomes King? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Princess Royal article explains exactly this, in its introduction. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Should've read that first. Thanks. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Middleton's money

How did the Middletons Snr make enough money to send their daughter to an expensive school? Thanks 92.15.8.107 (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

They own Party Pieces, a party supply company, which Carole Middleton (formerly a flight attendant) founded in 1987 ([11]), when Kate was 5. The Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge says the company's value is ~£30million. Both previously worked for British Airways. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Her great grandfather set up a trust to fund the education of his heirs [12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.84.184 (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So not really middle class, as 'they' would have us believe. 92.15.8.107 (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you apparently live in the UK I would have thought you understood this better then me but my impression was that in the UK it is accurate to say they are middle class (I think more specifically upper middle class) since they aren't members of the aristrocracy i.e. the Upper class#United Kingdom no matter how rich they or their ancestors may have been. This seems to be supported by that article and in more detail by Social structure of Britain#Upper class. Or did you miss the plenty of reminders that Kate was the first untitled woman to marry a close heir? Nil Einne (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

92's missing a lot of things; how many of these posts have we had in the past few weeks? We get it, you hate the monarchy, thanks for letting us know. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• They certainly bourgeois, though. "Middle class" often means a social status, rather than a socio-economic relationship. One could make the argument that while they subsist on the ownership of capital, they have no control over capital, but this is getting obtuse. The main reason to inquire into their class is to discuss social status, or to discuss socio-economic relationships. Decide which one you want to do, and get it right with the one you do. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

They are more like the gentry, who while not being titled aristocrats, were wealthy enough to live in mansions go to public schools and had income from capital. 92.15.10.74 (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Bay Area US Peace Index

The GPI at [13] is very interesting. Does anyone know of any research like this in the San Francisco Bay Area? Ryan Singer (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

People in the situation room last night

I was trying to figure out who all the people are in this picture. I've figured out Obama, Biden, Clinton, Gates, Daley, and Donilon (I think) thus far. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The flickr link lists them all. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

DOH! Qrsdogg (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You'd think that when they obscured the classified document in the foreground, they would have taken pains to make it look less like a pixilated porn image. Though, with Biden there... --Ludwigs2 01:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a great pic. I have to be a bit concerned, though, with the Prez, VP and Secretary of State being all in one room together... something Cheney and Bush supposedly didn't allow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Like why? Unlike brain surgeons, plumbers and the like, there tends to be an inexhaustible supply of politicians to take their place, should a lump of space rock, out the sky, fall on them. --Aspro (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Tell that to Bush and Cheney. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

GB is a good example, they came in twos. One might say Snr. had an heir and a spare. Anyway, Bush and Cheney could well exhibit a COI and so I was only addressing your concerns about fearing of being left leaderless ;-)--Aspro (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

See designated survivor. —Kevin Myers 03:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

May 3

What happened to Mauro David?

This is about dates for Italian hyperrealist painter Mauro David whose image features in that article. While voting for pics, found this one [14] - the file has the artist Mauro David 1949-2007 - did something happen to him? I find it confusing because he's been congratulated on his talk page as if still living. Thanks in advance for any help, Manytexts (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the biographical note on his website, he died on the 6th January 2007. DuncanHill (talk) 10:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case, commons:User:Mauro David isn't him, because that user's only edit was on February 25, 2007. I suppose the congratulatory talk-page posts were made by people who didn't notice the death date. Pais (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks people, that solves it for me. Looks like he might have been affected by long-term exposure to paints & solvents too. Cheers, Manytexts (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Family tree: Should mother-in-laws & father-in-laws (and their family) of my cousins, uncles and aunts be added?

Good morning (here in South Africa).
I'm busy building a family tree and have already got all my "close" relatives' information neatly written down.
But now: should the genealogical tree also include the mother-in-laws & father-in-laws (and their family) of my cousins, uncles and aunts? Is it irrelevant or necessary?
Thanking you in advance
Suidpunt (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If the family tree is meant to be handed down to your children and their children for posterity, then I would put the in-laws in. As regards aunts and cousins, I would concentrate first on compiling all the direct ancestors.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's good to focus on direct ancestors primarily. It's also good to enter as much as you know and as much as you can find out, because someone else might need or want that info someday, and once someone is gone, they may take that knowledge with them unless you've written it down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)You can do whatever you want with it. The more names and information you have, the better. You can, of course, make note of blood relatives vs. in-laws. Also, keep in mind that your own spouse is not your relative. If you have kids, they are related to both of you, and also to any in-laws that are in your direct line or your spouse's direct line. It's usually customary to at least list the spouses of relatives, where known, and how far you take their trees depends on (1) how far you feel like taking it; and (2) how close you are to them personally. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It all depends on you, and how addicted you are to the research! If I hadn't gone through my family tree thoroughly, I wouldn't have found the genetic basis for the rheumatoid arthritis I have (I've traced it in 5 generations). Nor would I have found the relationship to Edward III I have (in common with approx 80% of English people, apparently). Sometimes you find the in-laws and the aunts etc are the same... and that can give you pause for thought! Good luck with it. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

On second thought regarding the listing of aunts, uncles, etc. I just recently discovered that one of my paternal uncles was killed by the notorious Pendergast gang in Kansas City, Missouri when the Irish gangs ran the underworld there. I was intrigued to learn this. My suggestion is to add any interesting facts about your relatives, as I'm sure your decendants will be pleased.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As I've found out with shaking up my own family tree, you may find some golden apples, some rotten apples, and assorted fruits, nuts and squirrels. That's no small part of the fun. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the enthusiasm Jeanne Boleyn, Baseball Bugs and TammyMoet!

The only problem I have left then is to distinguish between what is juicy family goss and what is fact. I don't know about you guys and gals, but I'm not going to summarise my family members' unwritten biography: the main problem is that I would have to rely on a lot of hearsay, and that my own perspective of my family members, like I guess you towards your relatives too, is "tinted"/ subjective.

Family trees are for sharing, right? One of my relatives has been arrested by the police for marijuana; I read about this in an electronic newspaper archive - when I searched family names - it was published 14 years ago. Nobody, except me and the person himself, knows about it. Even as hard cold facts, how do one deal with such information that nobody gets hurt in the process? (Ironically, there's an article about another cousin of mine solving a crime; he was a brilliant detective back then). Shouldn't I rather ask the family members to write their own history (well, if they're alive, obviously)? Suidpunt (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(Asterix: when I refered to "family members", I meant "relatives") Suidpunt (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

One thing to be very sensitive about in constructing family trees is to protect living persons. That's one of the core axioms at ancestry.com. In general, I have bare-bones info about living persons, and nothing at all about those under a certain age, such as 50. What method are you using for collecting this data? Computer? Paper? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sensitive information, like what you've described, should be kept confidential, at least while someone is alive. You can still compile basic information within your own notes: birth date and place, marriage date and place, death date and place, children's names and the same info, etc., etc.; and any other information you may know, such as residences and especially photographs, which are very valuable to a tree, as they put faces to names. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Once they're gone, the confidentiality issue has not totally gone away, because they may have children that don't want the public to know about their parent's arrest record or whatever. So the information has to be handled sensitively still, because you never know how someone is going to use it. In my far-extended family tree, I like to say that I've got politicians, paupers, preachers, and pilferers, among other things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

My family recently discovered that an old relative had destroyed letters she had inherited from a yet older relative. She felt that these documents reflected badly on the family. On discovering this, we felt that she had destroyed something wasn't really hers to dispose of. Of course she knew the people involved as people: to us they're just names on a chart. So it goes with your relative's marijuana bust, and it's probably sensible and thoughtful to handle such stuff differently about living (or recently deceased) relatives than for the long dead. On discovering that you'd suppressed stuff, because it made you uncomfortable, those to whom you leave your genealogical study might feel you've trodden on their right to know everything and make their own mind up. So if you find stuff that's genuinely embarrassing, you might consider writing an addendum to the family tree, and keeping that to yourself. Keep it with your will (and possibly leave it to a younger relative who cares about this kind of stuff) and when you die that information can be integrated into the family tree, now that it's colour rather than scandal. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 14:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Finlay for the advice! I’ll keep that in mind; my cousin is really a lovable, sensitive person and already said to some of my relatives that he feels like the black sheep in the family (though nobody knows why, except me – and he doesn’t know that I know) – I only care about his feelings.

@Baseball Bugs. Answering your question, I'm using MyHeritage Family Tree Builder as an electronic database, but the way of collecting data is either face to face (and literally writing it down on paper, especially those cousins of mine who love to give laconic answers [who one has to pulse for info]) or using Facebook-communication. For the elders, it's telephony for sure. Most of the time I'm using a "dual-core" system: what's on the computer, must be on paper, and vica versa. For Newspaper archives, I visit the country's most popular paper's website itself, click on the [archive] button and start searching.

How ironic - I, on the other hand, have problems with those ABOVE 50 - getting in contact with my Dutch relatives from my father's side is rather difficult! For deceased South African relatives, I use www.eggsa.org for searching photos of graves in getting dates of birth and death. I'm not sure what Americans can use. Thankfully, I'm the youngest cousin; most of my cousins is around 53-40 years old and parents already; I'm 21, which means that I'm just a few years older than their children's level. My mother (also the youngest of her generation) is in contact with her "talkative" siblings, whose age vary between 60-80. Contact is extremely vital; do visit funerals, marriages, pick up the phone and, remember the Golden Rule: ASK QUESTIONS. Suidpunt (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I do sympathise. In one part of my family, I have someone who was jailed for "issuing" (forging counterfeit coins), another jailed for what appears in the official records as "B------" and which I presume to be buggery, and another who was imprisoned for neglecting his children, who were taken away from him and sent to Canada. None of this, however, happened in the last 110 years. These details are all kept with the relevant people, and for the Canadian link I've written a newspaper piece to try and find descendants of them. However, on my published family tree I don't show any such details. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you need the sympathy more than me, TammyMoet. That's terrible! Well, they got caught. Shame. Poor fellows. But what about those that never has been brought to book? There's but yet another rumour (scandal) that runs in the family; or is it a spider in the trousseau? Back in the Netherlands then, my great-grandfather, from my father's side, raped his own granddaughter, the daughter of his eldest son. I'm not fowling the family nest, it's already rotting for good! The genetic (blood) relevance between me and him is, luckily though, a mere 12.5%! But yet again, is it fact, or Victorian Gothic Fiction? Perhaps, I'll never know...Suidpunt (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait, before I get carried away - thank you so much for all your answers submitted. I really enjoyed reading it! So, off I am to find my cousins', aunts' and uncles' long lost in-laws... Happy Researching everyone! Good Night! (South Africa) Suidpunt (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Smallest winning vote in Canadian election

Hey all,

I was wondering, is there a list anywhere of canadian seats, just showing last night's winners and their % of the vote? I know Winnipeg South Centre was won with only 38.8%, was wondering if there were seats that were won with less (presuming 4-way marginals in Quebec would probably be the most likely for this). All I can find so far and on Elections Canada are seat by seat results, and would rather not go through all 308 of those :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.197.254 (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

39% is actually not that low of a plurality in Canada. In 2008, the Bloc Quebecois won Gatineau district with 29.2% of the vote. I'm sure eventually someone will post a spreadsheet of the results that you can search. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a published list, but I knocked a quick check together from this data - it looks like 31% in Vancouver Center, 31.8% in Ahuntsic, with half-a-dozen more under 35%. In the general case of four-way marginals, I think the record in the UK was <4% between first and fourth places, in Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber - the winner was on 26%! Shimgray | talk | 22:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hedy Fry won Vancouver Centre this time with 31% of the vote. I don't know if that was the smallest plurality. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It was the shortest on my list, but I'm not promising my back-of-the-envelope analysis was accurate ;-) Shimgray | talk | 00:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The CBC reports that two Ontario ridings [electoral districts] will have judicially-ordered recounts because the apparent margin of victory was less than a thousandth (0.1%) of the total vote cast: 26 votes in Etobicoke Centre (Greater Toronto Area) and 14 votes in Nipissing—Timiskaming. The story also mentions some other close margins. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

For election statistics by riding, as well as a downloadable text file that you can paste into a spreadsheet program like Microsoft Excel, visit Elections Canada at http://enr.elections.ca/home1.aspx (Il y a aussi une page parallèle en français.) —— Shakescene (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

¶ Yes, there is an easily searchable spreadsheet for this kind of thing, it just wasn't the one I first picked at the the Elections Canada web site above ("latest results"). Instead it's the less promisingly named "Report of Candidates Who Received the Most Number of Votes on Election Night"; you can download it directly by clicking here. Hedy Fry (Liberal-Vancouver Centre, incumbent) is indeed the winning candidate with the lowest percentage of votes (35.04% against 26.04% for Karen Shillington, NDP); the runner-up with the highest percentage of votes (probably but not necessarily the loser with the highest percentage) is Nettie Wiebe (New Democratic Party), who got 46.91% of the vote in Saskatoon–Rosetown–Biggar, Sask. against 48.70% for Kelly Block (Conservative Party of Canada) [the Liberal won only 2.3% and the Green Party candidate 2.1%]. The winners with the five lowest percentages of the overall vote are

1. 31.036% : Hedy Fry (Liberal Party of Canada), Vancouver Centre, B.C.
2. 31.798% : Maria Mourani (Bloc Québécois), Ahuntsic, Québec,
3. 33.422% : Jinny Sims (NDP), Newton–North Delta, B.C.
4. 33.760% : Philip Toone (NDP), Gaspésie–Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Québec, and
5. 33.767% : Ryan Leef (Cons.), Yukon, whose margin over Larry Bagnell, the sitting Liberal MP, was Canada's fifth-closest in number of votes (132) and sixth-closest in percentage (0.82%).

Among other superlatives I gleaned by sorting the spreadsheet are these:

• The Crowfoot riding in Alberta has the highest percentage for a winning candidate (Kevin Sorenson, C, 83.94%), the lowest percentage for a losing candidate (Ellen Parker, NDP, 9.14%) and the largest percentage margin between the first and second candidates (74.79%) [The Green candidate's 3.3% beat out the Liberal's 2.3% for 3rd place. 1.3% went to two others.]
• In absolute number of votes, the lowest total vote, the lowest votes for a winning candidate and the lowest for a runner-up were in Nunavut: Leona Aglukkaq (C) won 4,111 votes to 2,360 for Paul Okalik (L) out of at total vote of 8,247.
• Outside Labrador and the Territories, the lowest total vote, the lowest winning vote and the lowest second-place vote were all in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. (I think P.E.I. is guaranteed a minimum of 4 M.P.'s regardless of population, just as every State has two U.S. Senators.) The total vote was 18,468, including 7,292 for Sean Casey (L) and 6,040 for his closest challenger Donna Profit (C).
• The highest total vote was 90,460 in Oak Ridges—Markham, Ontario, won by Paul Calandra (C).
• The highest total for a winning candidate, and the highest margin in absolute votes was in Calgary Southeast where Jason Kenney (C) won 48,206 votes against 6,943 for Kirk Oates (NDP), for a margin of 41,713.
• The four lowest margins in percentage correspond to the four lowest differences in absolute votes:

1. 5 (.0011%) in Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, Qué.: François Lapointe (NDP) 17,278 (36.343%) over Bernard Généreux (C) 17,273 (36.333%)
2. 14 (0.033%) in Nipissing—Timiskaming, Ont.: Jay Aspin (C) 15,507 (36.61%) over Anthony Rota (L) 15,493 (36.58%)
3. 25 (0.048%) Etobicoke Centre, Ont.: Ted Opitz (C) 21,660 (41.21%) over Borys Wrzesnewskyj (L, incumbent) 21,635 (41.16%)
4. 45 (0.177%) Winnipeg North: Kevin Lamoureux (L) 9,097 (35.77%) over Rebecca Blaikie (NDP) 9,052 (35.59%)

—— Shakescene (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

denim brands

what are the top denim (jeans) brands for men? --Dhoand oirl (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Define "top". In terms of sales? Quality? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

See designer jeans for some suggestions.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In terms of brand reputation. --Dhoand oirl (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That's still vague. Reputation for "pricey", or reputation for "utility"? If it's the former, see the designer jeans article noted above. If it's the latter, look at popular name brands like Levi, Wrangler, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Levi's brand of denim jeans has the longest history and is known worldwide. The name has become a genericized trademark so not all levis are necessarily Levi's. An anecdote says that Levi's removed a crotch rivet following complaints from cowboys of discomfort after warming themselves by camp fires. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Carhartt, L.L.Bean, Lands' End…the list is endless, sort of. Bus stop (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking along the lines of what's "hot" and what's not? Manytexts (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Dior do some sexy jeans. They're dear, bout £185 for the cheapest pair but theyll last u forever. Gucci, balenciaga, versace, paul smith, burberry etc all do very good quality "couture" jeans --Thanks, Hadseys 01:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Medieval fiction - English capital

I'm writing fiction, and right now I'm struggling to make up a fitting name of the capital of my 'version' of England in a medieval world. At least some of its culture and city-names etc are based on medieval England, and the name of the capital should preferably not be anything too similar too the name "London" but it should be a name worthy of a capital.

Of course, making up english fictional city-names aren't that difficult as you can make up a name and mostly combine it with for example these words:

-bury, -borough, -chester, -bridge, -ham, -wich, -mond, -sted, -pool, -castle, -port, -ford, -by, -hampton An example being the real city of Nottingham (Notting-HAM)

But when trying to make a name for a capital it just doesn't sound right, and I have also been trying to make up a name that doesn't have any of the aforementioned words or other similar ones in it, just like 'London', or 'York'. Those two kind of stand out from the typical names of English cities and towns. Of course, there weren't that many cities in the middle ages but many settlements were already there nonetheless, which would eventually grow bigger throughout the ages.

I have already tried "Crownwall", but I figured it was too similar to "Cornwall" (for obvious reasons that doesn't work), and I also thought about "Kingsport" for a while but the capital is not going to be a port city so I can't use that either.

While I'm at it, I'm also looking to find a name which I can combine with -chester.

So if anyone feel a little creative today I'd appreiate your time and effort, truly.

I tried asking something similar here on wiki once before, with luck, so why not try again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.123.18 (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the Reference Desk is for providing information and sources, not artistic input. ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 12:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, technically speaking, the seat of government of England wasn't London Proper, but Westminster, so perhaps you could work out a -minster type thing. Kingsminster or something... --Jayron32 12:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

For a time, Winchester was the capital of England. Googlemeister (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Such as "Noreastminster"? Or how about "Primeminster" or "Yesminster"? Or, although this doesn't quite fit the OP's premise, a Peabody and Sherman episode where two cities named London were at war with each other because they had the same name. The solution was Peabody convincing one of the two cities to rename itself "Nodnol". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the history of the country involved? London gets its name from the Roman Londinium, for example. An Anglicanized version of a name given to it by the prior occupants of the country would help it seem to be "older" and more historical than the conventionally-named nearby towns. HominidMachinae (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'll try again: the Reference Desk is for providing information and sources, not artistic input. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 12:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem here with asking such a question, Mr. Wiki-police-officer, and although you insist I should not edit this page anymore I'm doing so nonetheless, a little bit in spite but mostly to thank those who took the time to answer me. So tnnx, Jayron and HominidMachinae And HominidMachinae, you do have a good point, the kingdom will have a history, obviously, and there will be a previous empire, almost like Rome, which once ruled a large area, including my 'version of England.' What you said is a good thing to keep in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.123.18 (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

We answer this sort of question all the time, and it's precisely the sort of thing we do much better than a search engine: it is a creative data processing task, in which we should be linking to relevant history and language topics in the encyclopedia. This is not the sort of 'debate' the guidelines warn against, but if you are unable to answer in a referenced manner or without debating, feel free to answer a different question. 86.164.70.27 (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we're providing information, I don't see the problem. Remember for Britain that the Romans sometimes Latinized a previous Celtic form (and there are two different kinds of Celtic there), and the Latinized forms were later Anglicized and Vikingized (or Vikingized and then Anglicized). So if your version of England also has numerous invaders and inhabitants influencing naming patterns, you could somehow work from there. Who built the city, what language did they speak, and who lived in it after them? Was the city always the capital, under each set of inhabitants, or did it become the capital later, after some invasion? Adam Bishop (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

How about Thamesham with the link between Thames and settlement ham. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Winster? Cabot Stone? Churchland? Avery Downs? I dunno...Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 19:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's see how that sounds. "It was a dark and stormy night when we rode into Dunno..." Yes, that's a good start to a prizewinning Monomyth, all it needs now is a publisher. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You express an interest in a name ending in -chester, which I think is a fine choice, since it implies a place fortified under the Romans, which a medieval capital is likely to have been. English names ending in -chester typically begin with an element that began as a Celtic or Latin name that was then Anglicized. Why not use the name of the Thames, which came to the Romans from a Celtic language? It may have even been adopted by the Celts from a pre-Celtic language. Starting from Anglo-Saxon *Tamescæster, you could end up with something like Temchester or Tamchester. Marco polo (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see this worthy question opened up again because I was just getting fascinated - especially with discoveries like Londinium, and all the -ized morphings, added backgrounds like -ham and -chester helping to make more sense. You put the "help" into help desk & I'm encouraged to come here again. Manytexts (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In my fictional game world, I call my London equivalent "Kingsborough". To me, it sounds like an English capital city that never was. Feel free to use it. —Kevin Myers 03:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There's always Aldburgh, simply 'the old city', by which London was sometimes refered back in the day, when it was already left over from earlier civilizations. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You might find Somerton interesting - reputedly the capital of Wessex around 900 AD. Astronaut (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Geography question

Which are the important and busy transportation canals north of tropic of cancer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.228.58 (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean in that general vicinity, or do you mean all the way to the North Pole, in theory? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I went to Canal and observed an entry for Lists of canals. That might help get you started. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a guess, but the OP may not mean "canal" in the sense used by a native English speaker. If they mean shipping routes more generally, Category:Shipping routes may be of more use. We don't seem to have an article on maritime trade routes per se, which seems an omission. A map like this may be of interest. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The (man-made) Suez Canal is north of the Tropic of Cancer, as is the (natural) English Channel. Both are heavily used transport passages. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Two other possibilities are the Saint Lawrence Seaway or the Intracoastal Waterway. Neither is a single "canal", but both consist of collections of canals, rivers, lakes, bays, etc. which are major shipping routes in North America. --Jayron32 14:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There must be thousands of "important and busy" canals north of the Tropic of Cancer. Without even looking at any of the Lists of canals I can think of the Erie Canal and the Landwehrkanal, and all the canals in Amsterdam and Venice. Pais (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Among the busiest natural channels are the Strait of Dover, Øresund, Strait of Gibraltar, Bosporus, Dardanelles, and the Taiwan Strait. The busiest constructed canal is the Kiel Canal. Marco polo (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

But channels are not canals? I would argue the Grand Canal (China) is also one of the largest (longest) and busiest canals north of the Tropic of Cancer. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The Kiel Canal article says it is the busiest artificla seaway in the world, with total traffic of 43,000 in 2007. Usage statistics are difficult to find for the Grand Canal but some google searches turn up numbers like "more than 30,000 boats employed year round in transportation along the canal". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me put a vote in for the Welland canal in Canada, which ship passengers find far more pleasant than going directly over Niagara falls, and also allows them to save money on barrels. StuRat (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Churchill's Iron Curtain Speech

My question is regarding Churchill's Iron Curtain Speech. According to the Wikisource link below, it includes the sentence: "From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent."

My recollection (not from hearing the speech but from hearing about it) is that the speech included a prediction/warning to the effect that (the curtain) shall not (or may not) be lifted in our lifetime.

There is no such line in the speech as given in Wikisource. I'm wondering if the line I recall is one I "invented" or whether it was used in another version of the speech or in some related document.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Sinews_of_Peace

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The words "lift" or "lifted" are not found in the text of Churchill's speech here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Viscount Grey said The lights are going out all over Europe and I doubt we will see them go on again in our lifetime. He was referring to the imminent First World War though, but I wonder if you were remembering this statement? --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Bill, what Grey actually said was: The lights lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe we both got it wrong, according to Wikiquotes, the expression was The lamps are going out all over Europe: we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime. Your version and mine are mentioned as misquotes, but granted yours is closer to the real quote than the one I provided. :0) --Bill Reid | (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I must need new glasses. I looked it up in my Oxford Dictionary of Quotations to make sure I had it exactly right (because when one is correcting another, it simply does not do to make an error oneself). And there it is, large as life - The lamps are going out .... But what did I see? The lights are going out .... Sorry about that. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible that you're mixing up Churchill's 1946 Fulton speech with Margaret Thatcher's comment on it in her 1990 Aspen Institute speech? It includes these lines:

For today we are coming to realise that an epoch in history is over, an epoch which began in 1946 when an American President and a former British Prime Minister shared a platform here in the United States at Fulton, Missouri.
They saw with foreboding what Winston Churchill famously called an Iron Curtain coming down across Europe. And they forged the great Western Alliance which bound us together through a common sense of danger to the lives of free peoples.
For more than forty years that Iron Curtain remained in place. Few of us expected to see it lifted in our life-time.

--Antiquary (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all. The lights are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime is very familiar. The memory I was wrestling with must have come from it.

I don't know how that quote from long before I was born got into my mind. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

But see above: it's not "the lights" but "the lamps". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Lamps, thank you. More appropriate to the time it originated. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There could be a British English thing going on here, where they use "lamp" and even "torch" to describe what, in American English, is more likely to be called a "light". StuRat (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

For sure. But when it comes to a quote, it's the actual words people say that are meant to be reproduced verbatim, not a modernised version or one made to sound more familiar to a particular audience. That's what paraphrases are for, maybe even indirect quotes - but definitely not direct quotes. This is something a lot of journalists have lost sight of: they will report someone as having said "ABC XYZ", with quote marks and all, when what they actually said was "ABY CXD ZE". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Bucklin voting/Borda count in Oklahoma

I understand that Oklahoma briefly used an electoral system which was basically a hybrid between Bucklin voting and the Borda count. I've read the Oklahoma Supreme Court case which ruled the system unconstitutional, but I'm trying to find details on the adoption of and legislation regarding the system. Can anyone help? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 17:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Legal Rule of Cool?

I was reading arguments about the legality of the killing of Osama bin Laden, and it got me thinking about whether the idea that some action may or may not have been lawful but accomplished some greater good has ever been (successfully) used as a legal defense. I'm not a lawyer but it seems like this might be more likely in a common law court as opposed to a civil law court. Is anyone aware of a case where such a defense won (and survived appeals)? 96.246.68.89 (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

My law professor from the great state of Oklahoma called this the HDDK defense: "He done deserved killin'" It's rarely attempted as far as I know but not impossible, though I would imagine in this enlightened age it's less possible than in prior eras. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In Westerns it more often occurs as "He needed killin'", I think. It's more a part of oral lore, popular literature, and/or the Hollywood version of history than an actual legal defense. AnonMoos (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I should point out that in this case, as pointed out below, it is a case of Jury Nullification. But that is a distinct possibility in a highly justifiable case. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• The main thing to know is that the words "law" and "legal" get a heck of a workout whenever they're applied to international affairs. At the national level, you (usually) have a government that has a monopoly on violence -- in other words, it's the government that locks up or even kills prisoners, and if a private citizen tried to start his own court or jail, he wouldn't get far. International law lacks that monopoly, which means there's a huge gap between its ideals and its reality. --M@rēino 20:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Courts often take public policy considerations into account, although I can't offhand recall any cases when a greater good defense was allowed in a murder case. The general concern is that such a view would set up every man as an executioner, which is not the intent of the law. Jury nullification is also a possibility. John M Baker (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A guy who killed an abortion doctor tried that defense. It didn't work. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Jury nullification, not likely. Prosecutor nullification, that's another story... Wnt (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

necessity and right of self-defense come to mind130.102.158.15 (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

In some countries, notably France, crime passionnel (or crime of passion) was a valid defense during murder cases. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

In some countries, such as England, there is wide discretion for prosecuters as to whether they want to bring a charge; in England cases are only brought if they are "in the public interest" and can be dropped if doing so is judged by the authorities to be in the public interest - see Crown Prosecution Service#Decision to prosecute. I'm not going to research it now, but I believe there have been a number of cases involving soldiers shooting civilians dead (often related to Northern Ireland) where a decision not to prosecute was made.--Colapeninsula (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ambition

What are some French sayings, idioms, or aphorisms about the positive quality of ambition? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

See this search for "ambition" at Wikiquote for French. --M@rēino 21:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

...where the 2nd hit is a translated line from Hamlet by a British author. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

And there are collections of French quotations on ambition at Dicocitations and Evene. --Antiquary (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You might want to try the Language Desk. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

May 4

Princess Kate?

the majority of the time, her name is spelled with a "K" - either Kate or Katherine. Did it change to a "C" with her new title? I read your article on her and says she was born Catherine (with a "C"). Why did news media - TV, magazines, internet, etc. spell her name with a "K"? I still see it that way - except for your article. Thanks for clarification. Barbara Batson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.240.187.67 (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC) I removed your email address. You really don't want the sort of spammers that hang round here!--TammyMoet (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The most common and traditional English spelling practice is that the name "Catherine" becomes "Kate" as a nickname... By the way, according to UK royal protocol, someone who marries a prince is not actually entitled to be called "Princess X" (where X is her given name). AnonMoos (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I remember hearing that as a quibble against the locution Princess Di. I think very few people really care about that detail of protocol. (I'm entirely in favor of not caring about that; what I don't quite get is why they care about royalty at all.) --Trovatore (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, technically she can be "Catherine, Princess" or "Princess William" (believe it or not), but not "Princess Catherine"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Catherine or Katherine can both be shortened to Katie, Kate or Katy (in order of popularity) - the C spellings for any of those forms are quite rare in the UK, even though "Catherine" is more common than "Katherine". "Kathy" and "Cathy" are about equally common - the latter seems to be the only widespread short form starting with C. Shimgray | talk | 00:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Traditional nicknames are not always straightforward shortenings. You have other such nicknames as "Bill" for William, "Harry" and "Hank" for Henry, "Peggy" for Margaret, "Betty" for Elizabeth, "Sly" for Sylvester, "Stosh" for Stanley, "Jack" for John, etc. etc. The Kate/Catherine things seems pretty close, in comparison. --Jayron32 00:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Cate Blanchett is the only one I can think of that retained the "C" from Catherine instead of switching it to "K". Meanwhile, there is a small collection of English names where, for some odd reason, they shorten it to one syllable, and change the first letter: Edward-Ed-Ned/Ted; Margaret-Meg-Peg; Mary-Molly-Polly; Robert-Rob-Bob; William-Will-Bill; and maybe a few others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If you google [meaning of name katherine] you'll find endless references and also many variations, as it's an ancient and very common name throughout Europe. It comes from a Greek name, and supposedly means "pure". Although they don't quite come out and say it, it seems that the original pronunciation is more like "kat-her-in" than the modern "kath-er-in", and that probably accounts for "Kate" as opposed to "Kathe", for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The name is related to catharsis which in Greek is spelt with a θ. Hence, the th should not be separated. --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't. See Katherine (given name)#Origin and meaning. It's from Greek Aikaterinē. The Cath- and Kath- spellings are due to a folk etymology associating the name with katharos 'pure'. Countries in the cultural sphere of Eastern Orthodoxy still use forms unaffected by the folk etymology, like Modern Greek Aikaterini, Romanian Ecaterina, and Russian Yekaterina. Pais (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Etymology is a dangerous field... --Wrongfilter (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's Kate...short for Bob. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Bobbed for short. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Adam Bishop is making a reference to Blackadder for those not familiar with British TV humour.

I imagine the name's popularity in the west goes back to Saint Catherine of Alexandria of the Catherine wheel (firework) fame. There are a number of other St. Catherines but she seems to be the best known at least in the UK. Alansplodge (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Related question

I know she became a Duchess upon her marriage to Wills... but did she actually become a princess? Blueboar (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not an expert on the monarchy, but I know there are three kinds of "princes":

1. The titular ruler of a principality, such as Wales or Monaco
2. A male member of a royal family
3. Any monarch who rules a country (which is what Queen Elizabeth I was referring to when she called herself a "prince")

Prince William is a "prince" by the second definition but not the first one. He is a prince, but not a prince "of" anything. So Kate can't be a princess yet. Prince Charles, on the other hand, was already "prince of Wales" when he married Diana, so Diana got to be "princess of Wales." When Charles becomes king, he presumably will name William "prince of Wales," making Kate the princess of Wales. Until then, they'll have to live with being Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

She is Princess William, she's just not styled that way. She would have been styled Princess William of Wales had William not been given a dukedom. See Princess Michael of Kent for an example of the wife of a prince with no peerage. Proteus (Talk) 07:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

From our article Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge; "Catherine's full title and style is: Her Royal Highness Princess William Arthur Philip Louis, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus." Alansplodge (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Another semi-related question: the eldest son of a duke generally gets to use a lower-ranking title of his father's as a courtesy title. Does that mean that if William and Kate have a son, he will be styled "Prince Whoever, Earl of Strathearn" (assuming Elizabeth and Charles are still alive so William hasn't been promoted to Prince of Wales or King yet)? Pais (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No, princes don't use courtesy titles. For example, the current Duke of Gloucester and Duke of Kent were styled "Prince Richard of Gloucester" and "Prince Edward of Kent" before succeeding, rather than using the Earldoms of Ulster and St Andrews respectively as courtesy titles. Proteus (Talk) 12:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So he'd just be Prince Whoever of Cambridge? Pais (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Under current rules, the eldest son would be "Prince Name of Cambridge" and any other children would be "Lord Name Mountbatten-Windsor" or "Lady Name Mountbatten-Windsor". It's considered likely that the rules will be changed before the birth of his first child so that all his children will be princes or princesses. (This is all assuming he has children during the Queen's lifetime; if his father succeeds before he has children, they will all be princes or princesses anyway.) Proteus (Talk) 15:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, German has two completely separate words Fürst "ruler of a principality" and Prinz "son of a king". Meaning #3 given by Mwalcoff is semi-obsolete in modern English (except when translating Machiavelli)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the terms Fürst, Prince and Premier, as used for rulers, all derive from "First". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That's sort of true, Bugs, but a bit misleading as you have said it. "Fürst" and "premier" derive from words meaning "first" in different languages; "prince" derives from a word meaning "first taker" in Latin. They are all ultimately from the same root. --ColinFine (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Danish-Norwegian elections

When was the Christian II of Denmark, Frederick I of Denmark, Frederick II of Denmark, Christian IV of Denmark, Frederick III of Denmark elected Kings of Denmark and Norway? We can guest they succeed upon their father's death, but the two kingdoms were election. Can someone give me the exact dates of their elections? And would Christian II and Frederick I have seperate elections?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Danish Biographical Lexicon says the election of Christian II took place July 22 1513 on a common Danish-Norwegian meeting of the lords. Regarding Frederick I, the same source says that a common uprising in Jutland caused his election at Viborg Thing as king, where a preliminary håndfæstning was drawn up March 26 1523, and this was accepted at Roskilde Thing August 3 same year. His coronation took place August 7 1524, but it says that following this the "Norwegian Rigsråd also elected him as king". Christian IV was already chosen as heir by the Herredag in Odense in April 1580. In 1584 he was on a tour in the different provinces to recieve a jubilation (and thus a kind of confirmation) as heir. Frederick III was not favoured by the Rigsraad and it took several months after the death of his father before he finally managed, in "the first days of May 1648" to become elected as king, I presume in Copenhagen in a common Danish-Norwegian meeting, but it doesn't say. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Girls with guns

What is the point in making a distinct film genre called Girls with guns? I mean what is so special with a girl carrying guns? If it is because in the past girls generally did not carry guns/were considered weak, then why there is no counterpart for boys, say "Boys with dolls" or "Boy babysitter" films? --Eaon flux (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

How many are there, aside from Brokeback Mountain and Mr. Mom? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Because girls with guns are a popular male fantasy and lots of guys think that girls with guns are hot, while you'll have to search a while longer to find women who get hot and bothered by the thought of boys with dolls. Dismas|^(talk) 08:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to search far for women with that fantasy on the internet. I would argue that the moment a girl becomes a soldier, she becomes a woman. The strength of character of the soldiers of local forces, coastal defence, and anti-aircraft in the People's Liberation Armed Forces and People's Army of Vietnam is notable; especially given their logistic and operational problems. So I'd argue there's a dissonance in effect here in the desire for girls with guns. Women with guns would be far too threatening. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Lara Croft came to mind as a modern strong woman. I wouldn't say "Women with Guns" is threatening, but definitely more serious. "Girls with Guns" somehow implies a combination of youthfulness, naivete, strength, attractiveness and heroism. Many fictional heroes tend to be young and relatively innocent. As you suggest, "Women with Guns" can be the real-life heroes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I've known a number of Gen-X women who prefer to be called "girls". Why? "Because 'women' are old!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A lot of James Bond movies (i.e. most of them) have girls with guns, although that's obviously not the main focus (most of the time, anyways). That's obviously an attempt at the combination Baseball Bugs describes above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Or even better yet, with a crossbow. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has commons:Category:Females with weapons... -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Conservative Party

What is the position of the Canadian Conservative Party on economic issues such as 1. tax reduction, 2. social security, 3. healthcare, 4. public education? --Reference Desker (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Conservative Party of Canada has some info. Their website has a link to their policy (and a link to a longer PDF file for more in-depth policy).

Thanks. --Reference Desker (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

non-pornographic cover of a pornographic video

During the 1970s child pornography was legal in Denmark (see Pornography in Denmark, Color Climax Corporation). If the cover of a legally produced video of child pornography was not itself pornographic, and was available under a free license, would it be likely to be legal for the WMF to host this image for use in an article?

I am only asking whether we could host such an image, not whether we should. The latter question would depend on the exact image and it's relevance to the article - I don't even know whether such an image exists (although as some adult pornography videos have non-pornographic covers it is theoretically possible) so the latter question is unanswerable.

This question is inspired by Talk:Child pornography#images where someone asked why we don't have images to illustrate that article. The reason being that nobody has found an image that is both legal and relevant. This question is wondering whether this hypothetical image would be legal as it might be relevant (we can't know the latter without knowing whether such an image exists). Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a question that Wikimedia's lawyers would have to answer. However, I think you are correct in taking the cautious approach here. It is safer to assume that adding the image would be illegal... unless you have competent legal advice that says it legal. Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a hard time imagining that a non-pornographic image could be regarded as pornographic (legally or otherwise) just because the contents of the media it was sold on were themselves pornographic. But I am not a lawyer, and child pornography laws are notoriously squirrelly. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this question is so specific that it qualifies as a legal advice question, not a legal information question, so you're going to have to ask a lawyer; presumably, the lawyers of the Wikimedia Foundation. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There was a huge brouhaha on this and other matters at Commons:Sexual content (which in the end had little result). Because the status quo favors a regime of censorship which is anathema in every other context, there are some very strange wrinkles to it. For example, Commons has a large number of images by Guglielmo Plüschow, a Victorian era photographer, which are apparently museum pieces and discussed as fine art. It turns out that the Victorian era was quite laid-back on sexual matters, so it was not uncommon for little boys to swim in the nude, nor seen as improper for Pluschow to photograph them; and when he was convicted of common procuration and seduction of minors it meant only a few months in jail. So - despite clear assertions in major court cases to the contrary - Wikipedia now finds itself in the position of serving up images that in other contexts would very likely be called child pornography, showing genitals of young boys, taken by a pedophile, because it has clear historical and artistic significance. And given that Larry Sanger's FBI investigation didn't lead to any prosecutions, it would appear that the government either accepts that, or at least, is afraid that a court presented with the case might finally extend the First Amendment's Maginot line all the way to the sea. There was also a dispute mentioned there involving a Virgin Killer album cover. But I've never heard of a an image being illegal simply by association - see Traci Lords, for example. Wnt (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Obama photo

Another question. Uncyclopedia has a photo of Obama which says it was taken during Europe visit. I want to know exactly where and when the photo was taken. --Reference Desker (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the 2009 G8 summit, in L'Aquila, Italy. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It made all the news outlets in the US when it happened. See this Google search for "Obama Sarkozy girl". It was at the G8 conference, if I'm not mistaken. Dismas|^(talk) 12:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) [15]. TinEye is great for this kind of question. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 12:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This video shows the context of the entire "event". Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Not reinforcing bad behavior

If a child/grown up child starts screaming, crying, demanding something, ... you don't want to reinforce this behavior, however, at some point in the future, you'll give some gift, prize or whatever to this person. How much do you have to wait, so that the persons understands that you are not reinforcing his behavior? Quest09 (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That depends entirely on the maturity of the child. Dismas|^(talk) 13:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't time. It is the context. I can take my screaming son out to the car and make him sit in his carseat until he stops crying. Then, I can buy him a toy for staying right next to me while I shop for groceries just a little while later. From a child's perspective, time really doesn't exist. Everything is right now. So, there is no real confusion. -- kainaw™ 13:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that "time doesn't exist", but the time gap needed is very short for young children, and steadily gets longer as they age. For a toddler, a few minutes is usually enough. For a teenager, perhaps a few days (also depending on the severity of the infraction). Or, another way to handle it is that the child is forgiven once they apologize and make amends. If your kid breaks another kid's toy in a fit of rage, then he is forgiven once he apologizes and gives the kid his toy as a replacement. Thus, at this point, you can continue to provide "rewards". StuRat (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll add that children learn from you. Don't think about this from the child's perspective: If you are giving something to the child as a tool to get the child to behave, the child will learn from your attitude that this is normal behavior (s/he does things that make you give him/her things so that s/he'll do other things). On the other hand, if you are clear about boundaries (giving the child things when you decide it's correct to do so, and not allowing the child's behavior to dictate your actions) the child will learn to interact with you rather than demand things from you. It takes time - learning social interaction skills is an incredibly complex task for a child, and they will do it wrong for a long time - but you need to be consistent about modeling the kind of behavior you want to see in your child, because the child will learn more by watching you than you can possibly imagine. --Ludwigs2 18:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've heard it called "rewarding bad behavior", which at the child level is equivalent to the adult-level approach called "appeasement". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Background of homophobic violence - studies?

Hi, I have often wondered about anti-gay violence, and the Wikipedia article on the subject isn't much help.

Secularists tend to blame religion - but what percentage of "gay bashers" in western countries are actually religiously motivated?? (I'm talking about those who commit assaults, not merely those holding anti-gay attitudes or engaging in discriminatory conduct). And of these, which religions? How many are motivated by Christianity, for example, compared to, say, Islam? The Wikipedia article mentions anti-gay violence by Christians in Africa, but I've almost never heard of this phenomenon in the western world (other than perhaps fringe ideologies like the Phineas Priesthood). Can someone point me to research on this question?

Distorted ideas of masculinity also seem to feature in the popular perception. What does the research have to say on this matter? I've also read that some men will abuse lesbians whom they perceive as rejecting their sexual advances. Dunno how often they turn violent, though.

Some abusers are clearly motivated by "personal" grievances. "Honour killings" in conservative societies, discovering one's child is gay, having "gay" as a surname (in one case) and being bitter about it, having suffered sexual abuse as a child by an adult of the same sex, mental illness making one believe they are doing "god's work" by killing homosexuals, etc, etc. How many "gay bashers" fall into this category?

Are there any other motives which feature prominently in such violence?

Note: I'm not moralizing, just asking for facts - so please don't flame me. 203.45.95.236 (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

As for other motives, it is often claimed that a fair portion of anti-gay violence is perpetrated by men who are gay themselves but highly closeted. On the one hand, they resent men who are comfortable with being openly gay (since the bashers themselves are not comfortable with it); on the other hand, they want to deflect suspicion from themselves as much as possible by being so clearly anti-gay that (they hope) no one would ever dream of thinking they might be gay themselves. (I'm getting mixed up with my pronouns here, I hope you can follow me.) I don't have any sources or refs for any of this, sorry, but it's another angle to look at when researching the motivations of anti-gay violence. Pais (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I always felt it odd that straight men would hate gay men; by being gay, aren't they increasing the pool of available women? --Golbez (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There's more to it than that. Straight men know what filthy things they themselves think about women, and it terrifies them that other men might be thinking the same things about them. —Angr (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

In Western societies, I don't think religion is often the primary motivation. Instead, personal insecurities are, I think, usually the primary motivation for violence, as Golbez Pais suggests. However, I think that homophobic religious teachings do allow some queerbashers to have the feeling that their actions are righteous and somehow sanctioned by God or their church. Here are some references to research on motivations: [16] [17] [18]. Here is a bibliography. A relevant Wikipedia article is Karen Franklin. Marco polo (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was the one who mentioned personal insecurities. And I guess I'm displaying mine now by writing this... Pais (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Corrected. Sorry, Pais. I missed the signature between those two posts. Marco polo (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt the OPs claim that "Secularists tend to blame religion" holds water, especially, but not exclusively, since a lot of secularists are theists (you might benefit from reading secularism). --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A classic example would be mistreatment in Soviet prisons, where religion would at least not obviously be a factor - see thief in law. As we see with American kosher laws against horse, dog, and cat meat, it is possible for people to develop apparently religious taboos in the absence of religion, or even when their religion expressly contradicts it. Wnt (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

on Wnt's last sentence above. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It probably has as much to do with "machismo" or male "pack" behavior as anything. In that approach, anyone who is seen as "unmanly" or "different" (i.e. the broader definition of "queer") is not to be trusted. The ever-politically-incorrect George Carlin once said that in his day, "faggot" meant simply an "unmanly" man. Or as he put it, "A fag was someone who wouldn't go downtown and help beat up queers." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

In the 18th century, an "effeminate" man was one who dressed up to attract women. In Roman times, an effeminate man was one who loved his wife! --NellieBly (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Adam Bishop (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Following up on the "pack" thing is that there is a lot of "conformism" in what might be called "straight male culture", and if someone doesn't conform they're considered "odd", to say the least. Gays may wishfully think that straight men are secretly closeted. I think it has more to do with non-conformity. Specifically, "Why are you acting like a girl?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

While some gay men do sometimes engage in wishful thinking that certain straight men are merely closeted, that wishful thinking is virtually never applied to the ones who are beating us up. —Angr (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Those who would beat up gays are probably violence-prone in general. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, but do they go seeking out people from other minority groups who are minding their own business, with the specific aim of beating them up? Racist violence often happens too, but is there any evidence the people who do that are the same people who commit homophobic violence? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

They might or they might not. It depends on who they feel like targeting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Go to about 4 minutes into this clip,[19] which in a way speaks to one of the theories. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Motives for assaulting a gay man: "I'm a straight guy. He came on to me, and I was so surprised/disgusted/etc that I lost control and attacked him." (Do we have an article on this defence?) Another motive is even more gruesome and banal: showing off, as in the so-called Clockwork Orange queerbashing in Trafalgar Square, in the middle of London. Guardian story here:

David Pollard cannot help thinking about the ease with which abuse can turn to violence.

"When it's extreme, there's an assumption that the people behind it wanted it to be extreme on that occasion," he says. "But I think the distinction that's being made is perhaps incorrect. These things are often only less violent than they could be because the people involved don't have something sharp on them. It's the recklessness of it."

BrainyBabe (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the more extreme cases happened in connection with the Jenny Jones talk show. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

BrainyBabe -- that's the so-called "gay panic defense"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

History Of Harold E Monser

I have a Bible of 1910 Author Harold E Monser. It is Cross Reference Variorum Edition. American Standard Version. I am trying to find out the History of the Author and my Bible. This is not a school project. Thank you for your time. 71.59.154.147 (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoever Harold E. Monser was, he isn't the author of the Bible you have. Where do you see his name in the book? You can find out more about this translation in our article American Standard Version. Pais (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

He was the editor-in-chief of the Cross-Reference Bible. You can find a little about him here. --Antiquary (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Some more concise info here. His dates were 1868 - 1918. He gets a brief mention in Wikipedia at Logos International Study Bible. Alansplodge (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that the ASV is not generally remembered as one of the better or more useful efforts in Bible translation... AnonMoos (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Did the original authors tell you that?DOR (HK) (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)]]

You can look at the comments I added to Talk:American Standard Version#Criticisms back in 2008. In short, there were certain technical problems, which were not compensated for by any very notable gain in lucidity or literary quality over the KJV... AnonMoos (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

4th Avenue?

The source for Armenian communist newspaper Proletar gives its address as "407 Fourth Avenue, New York City". Would that be in Brooklyn or Manhattan? --Soman (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't know, but I can tell you that Union_Square_(New_York_City) was a hot-bed of left-wing activities during the much of the 20th century, with left-wing bookshops etc. on the surrounding streets... AnonMoos (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Never been to New York but Google Maps says it's in Brooklyn. Alansplodge (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Brooklyn addresses always specify the city as "Brooklyn", not "New York City". Having grown up in the area, I can say that an address giving the city as "New York" almost always refers to Manhattan. If you look at our article, Park Avenue (Manhattan), you will see that the northern end of the former Fourth Avenue in Manhattan was renamed "Park Avenue South" in 1959. I'm guessing that your source dates from before 1960. Marco polo (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Confusion probably because "New York" means "Manhattan" and "New York City" means the Five Boroughs. But I would think that the "default value" for an address that ambiguously says "New York City" would be "New York". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No confusion necessary... looking at the source actually gives the address as "407 Fourth Avenue, New York, N.Y." (not the broader, and more potentially confusing "New York City"). In 1925 (when the source was published) an address of "New York, N.Y." always referred to Manhattan (and usually still does.) Blueboar (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If it was actually "New York, N.Y." then it's definitely Manhattan, and hence the joke about calling the city "New York, New York" for those who didn't get it the first time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"The city so nice they named it twice"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that 407 Fourth Avenue/Park Ave. South, on the northeast corner of 28th Street, was the site of the once-famous Belmore Cafeteria, a popular grubby eatery seen in the movie Taxi Driver. The building was demolished in the early 1980s and now an apartment building stands there.--Cam (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Would the no 407 be in the same place as in 1925 or would they have shifted over the years? --Soman (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The street numbers apparently did not change with the street-name change. But I have no idea if the Belmore Cafeteria building was there in 1924, or if it was built after that.--Cam (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I googled the cafeteria name, and one of the first items that came up was this,[20] the obit of its long-time owner. It says he bought it in 1929, so presumably it was built at least a few years before then. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

May 5

Excuse me sir!

I just read The Dead by James Joyce for the first time, and I know I've seen the joke Gabriel tells:

"Round and round he went," said Gabriel, "and the old gentleman, who was a very pompous old gentleman, was highly indignant. 'Go on, sir! What do you mean, sir? Johnny! Johnny! Most extraordinary conduct! Can't understand the horse!"

before. I mean not exactly that quote, but the same thing: a bemused gentleman riding a misbehaving horse and calling it "sir" like "Excuse me sir! What is the meaning of this behavior?" Do any of the excellent people of RD/H recognize the reference? This is really bothering me. 71.176.141.209 (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Democratic party propaganda PR strategy of the 60s or 70s

Searching for the name of this. It's something like Sven-Pickvens, named after its authors. I believe one of its main cornerstones was appropriating the term "liberal" to avoid association with the Soviet Union socialists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.44.252 (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say, but the word "socialist" already had very negative connotations in U.S. politics by the late 1910s / early 1920s (see Palmer Raid etc.). -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The term "socialist" was used then the way "communist" was used in the cold war era - and the way "liberal" is used now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of "Sven-Pickvens", though of course there's always Slim Pickens. ;-) Perhaps you're thinking of slightly different leftist labels, or a different time period. As AnonMoos says, the initial flight from the term "socialist" came long before the 1960s. In 1951, journalist Felix Morley described his take on the process:

Those who urge the progressive intervention of government in business were once accurately and dispassionately known as 'Socialists.' But most American Socialists now describe themselves as 'liberals,' although that designation for a believer in State planning is directly opposite to the historic meaning of the word. There is no doubt that this type of semantic duplicity, or double-talk, has been politically influential.

There have been several times when the American left has shed one label in favor of another. As Morley described, the left appropriated the word "liberalism" around the 1920s, giving it a nearly (but not exactly) opposite meaning (the original meaning is now called classical liberalism). In the '60s, "liberal" began to lose its appeal for some liberals. In 1976, Democratic presidential hopeful Morris Udall stopped describing himself as a "liberal" and returned to "progressive", saying "when a word takes on connotations you don't like, it's time to change the label". I would guess that you're remembering something from this era, when perhaps older liberals, uncomfortable with the rise of the New Left (for whom "socialist" was not a dirty word), sought refuge in a return to the word "progressive". —Kevin Myers 04:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It's only simple people who demand simplistic labels for complex concepts. HiLo48 (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

And it's hard to find any "simpler" person than a politician. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

¶ I think what the original poster might have been thinking of is reflected in these two postings in the American right-wing blogosphere:

• Duped! Relentless Marxist Deception by Alan Caruba (The Progressive Conservative, USA, vol. XIII, issue 63, March 5, 2011)
• American Socialist Group Leaks Names of House Members in Their Ranks, RedState.com, posted by pratsha45, Saturday, August 14th, 2010, at 5:30 p.m. EDT

Let me make the following comments about those pieces, since I've long been a democratic socialist (in fact a founding member of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, a predecessor of Democratic Socialists of America): (1) it's never been a secret about this branch of socialism working within the Democratic Party, as there were long and public wrangles over this very question (see Socialist Party of America and Socialist Party USA); (2) there hasn't been that much secret, either, about Congressional members of, or sympathizers with, DSA; their names and pictures often featured (together with other names) on recruiting brochures; and (3) most seriously, the feeble attempts to link democratic socialism with Kremlin or Beijing or Havana style communism are just wrong; our rejection of dictatorial methods is what distinguishes us from Communists, both when that's popular and when it's not; in fact I just wrote a very critical piece for a liberal blog last Saturday about why I couldn't positively celebrate the Fall of Saigon 36 years ago (30 April 1975). ¶ This isn't a forum, so I don't want to be more argumentative or advocatorial than I need be to answer the original question about sources which have their own political implications. After removing what I consider to be inaccuracies or irrelevancies, I think a valid point does remain; it's just a rather mundane one. Socialists see the achievement of liberal objectives as necessary to even begin discussing how and whether to progress further towards liberalism, so it doesn't make sense to alienate non-socialists with socialist rhetoric if you're trying to achieve something much more limited (for example, union bargaining rights). Universal health care is a socialist objective, but it's one that's been shared by conservatives from Otto von Bismarck and Theodore Roosevelt to the newly-re-elected Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper. (For a very rough analogy, there are many who want to turn [or return] America into a Christian nation, but they can still be principled workers on other moral issues without either proclaiming or hiding their ultimate ideal. Working for universal health care doesn't automatically mean that a liberal is also a socialist, any more than opposing abortion means that a conservative is some kind of theocrat.) —— Shakescene (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Socialists see the achievement of liberal objectives as necessary to even begin discussing how and whether to progress further" -- Unfortunately historically that has not been true; there was a school of thought which can be labelled "the worse the better" or "Kautskyism" or "Impossibilism" which rejected all reforms under the rotten capitalist system because it would postpone the day of proletarian revolution. This was very prominent in continental Europe during the late 19th-century and early 20th century... AnonMoos (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Found my answer in one of last night's dreams, oddly enough. It was socialist campaign amidst the Democratic Party, at least I got that right. Raskolkhan (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Cloward–Piven strategy

That seems to be a strange Glenn Beck conspiracy obsession; there's no evidence that this article had any significant influence in real-world politics, and it seems to have remained rather obscure until Glenn Beck somewhat arbitrarily chose to retroactively make it his focus, long after its original publication... AnonMoos (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hitler

Hi all. Did Hitler ever write down any tips on how to give a stirring speech (I mean, besides blaming Jews/minorities)? I know what he did to the Jews was terrible and I in no way condone it, but still Hitler was a genius, at least when it came to giving speeches. THanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he ever wrote a Public Speaking for Dummkopfs book, but his technique has been studied. I saw some PBS special about Hitler, a number of years ago, and they had some footage besides what you normally see. First of all, it's obvious he had absolutely no fear of public speaking, which certainly helps. They said he would come out on stage and just stand there silent for a minute or two, surveying the crowd, no doubt making eye contact with many of them. Then he would start talking - softly, measured. Over the next hour or whatever, he would pick up the pace, bringing the mesmerized crowd along with him, until it would climax with what you usually see in film footage, of him shouting and the crowd shouting back with him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Reader's Digest i the 1930's , if I recall correctly, had an article with pictures of him practicing dramatic facial expressions in front of a mirror. He clearly knew the photos were being shot, so he thus consented to "giving tips" on how to deliver a dramatic speech. Edison (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

He tapped into anger, initially at Germany's failing economy and humiliating defeat during WW1, then found somebody to blame it on. I'm not sure how this could be replicated for a more positive end, like fighting global warming. Stirring up hatred is easy, but not particularly productive, unless your goal is to massacre people. StuRat (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I remember hearing, but this could be apocryphal, that he had "insiders" dispersed into the crowd with instructions to incite fervor. I don't know if it is true or not, but it sounds plausible and the effect it would have had is undisputed. People in groups tend to base their reactions on social proof, just like if you have a few people laugh in a cinema it can set off a "chain reaction".. Sprinkle a few people around a crowd who start yelling and saluting and all that and people around are much more likely to get into the spirit of things. The social proof phenomenon no doubt also played a part in why so many seemingly normal people did terrible things. Vespine (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm among many who've never been able to read more than a chapter or two of Mein Kampf at a time; it's too loose, disorganized and detached from reality. But in discussing his early political career, Hitler does give out various hints and tips about political organizing and rhetoric, as well as his views of public opinion and crowd behaviour. Some of his theories about swaying popular sentiment can be seen in reverse from what he says about how the German people were craftily misled by the Jews, the Marxists, the plutocrats and other villains. He was never much of a writer; most of his sayings were transcribed by intimates like Rudolf Hess and then reduced to writing. Profitable as Mein Kampf eventually proved to be, Hitler never wanted another book published under his name because he was afraid it would limit his future freedom of action. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

So Mein Kampf was kind of like "Quotes from Chairman Adolf"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the killing of Osama Bin Laden legal?

A few days ago Osama Bin Laden was apparently killed. However, the details of the killing are apparently that the US ordered troops to go to his hiding and gun him down. Is this legal? I thought in today's modern world we treat a criminal by:

(a) Taking him to court (b) Deciding his punishment (c) Serving the appropriate punishment

I mean shouldn't have Bin Laden be taken to court first and shouldn't he have been given the opportunity to defend himself with a lawyer and then the punishment decided etc.? Don't say that he shouldn't be given this opportunity because he killed thousands of people; in today's world we don't go gunning town muderers, we take them to court first. Killing someone who say murdered this other guy is illegal unless he has been given the death penalty in court. The same is true for Bin Laden.

Even more so Bin Laden was not even in the US. Why do the US have rights to take Bin laden to their country? As he is in Pakistan, Pakistan law applies and Pakistan government only can give the punishment. I don't see anyone challenging the US because they would be afraid but still it's a question worth asking. I don't understand how international law applies but if someone challenges the US saying that the murdered Bin Laden without taking him to court first, what penalties to the US face? Can the US goverment be fined and/or proscuted?

Finally, why is there so much propoganda about "joy of Bin Laden's death"? In today's world, we don't laugh when someone dies even if he is a murdered who has been given the death penalty. Can someone be sued for being happy about Bin Laden's death? I mean can the court case be based on a case of defamation by expressing happiness about someone's death. Can someone associated to Bin Laden file a court case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

He was not a conventional criminal, he was an enemy combatant, and it's a war, so he bore the consequences. He could have surrendered, but didn't, so he was taken out. In theory, the UN could impose some kind of sanctions on the US. Not bloody likely. It's Pakistan that's going to pay for this, for harboring him. Maybe you missed them dancing in the streets in some Arabic communities when 9/11/01 happened. And, no, you can't sue someone for being happy over this. There's no jurisdiction. There are a lot of things going on in "today's world" that shouldn't go on, but they do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

1) Is it legal ? Probably not. The Pakistani government could bring charges, but not having custody or even knowing the names of the soldiers involved would make that difficult to pursue. If they found the names out and requested extradition from the US for trial, it would be denied. The International Criminal Court could charge the US under international law, but the US would just ignore it. In the US they could try the soldiers, but this would soon lead up the chain of command to the decision maker, Obama. He could be impeached by Congress, and would, if he just ordered random murders of people around the world, but no politician would bring charges for killing bin Laden. Also, I think some Congressmen where notified in advance, and approved. Then there's the huge negative PR anyone would incur who tried to defend bin Laden in court.

2) As for why to not try bin Laden in court:

2a) He was in Pakistan, who seemed to be helping him hide. So, they would not be interested in arresting and trying him.

2b) If he was captured, then, like the perpetrators of the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre of Israeli athletes, he would soon be released to terrorists who took hostages and threatened to kill them if he was tried. As Israel learned, the only two viable options are to let famous terrorists go or kill them immediately.

3) As for whether it's morally right, I tend to view it this way: For people who follow international law, they are entitled to it's protections. For people who don't (like terrorists), they aren't. Now, there is the issue of how you determine if somebody is really a terrorist or was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I could believe that some of the people at Camp X-Ray fall into the latter category, but not bin Laden. There's a huge volume of evidence implicating him, including his own videotapes where he bragged about it. StuRat (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. government is claiming that it is legal [21]. Other people aren't too sure. Ultimately, in international politics, what's legal is what you can get away with. Nobody's going to haul Obama to International Criminal Court in The Hague, so it's all good, from a practical perspective. Buddy431 (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The blackmail that StuRat speaks of is par for the course for these characters. There were news stories the other day (don't ask me which ones) that said there was a standing threat of, apparently, a nuclear holocaust in Europe if OBL were caught or killed. The US called that bluff (assuming it was a bluff) and went ahead with it. Regarding 1972, the terrorists initially got away, but the Israeli intelligence agency figured out who they were and took them out over time, one by one. They got into a spot of trouble when they killed the wrong guy at some point. These things happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The US government states that a country is allowed to attack and kill the leader of the force which is at war with it. Bin Laden did not "take to court" thousands of civilians his minions killed on 9/11/2001, so clearly he should not have expected that nicety to be extended to himself. A quote from author Katherine Arthur, regarding the execution of Julius Rosenberg: "He buttered his bread, now let him lie on it." Edison (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The US is slowly learning the sad lesson that to defeat the terrorists you have to sink to their level. They're never going to change their murderous ways, so the only solution is to kill them all. (I'm aware of the irony in that statement.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you missed them dancing in the streets in some Arabic communities when 9/11/01 happened. Sorry nothing personal but that's a terrible sentiment that I've heard a few times now to defend this behavior.. Since when is "they did it" become a valid excuse for base behavior? Maybe you missed them flying planes into buildings? Vespine (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

In this case, Niccolò Machiavelli was right: the end justifies the means. Bin Laden wanted war and violence and he got it it. Morality is irrelevant here. I'm surprised people are even discussing it. Bin Laden brought about the deaths of thousands of people, left destruction and fear in his wake, the cost of his attack against our western society (which he had decided was "decadent" and therefore should be destroyed) cannot even be calculated. So why are people quibbling about morality and legal issues? It was obvious the US government would one day send him for his tea.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

How do we draw the line? Was the Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko also legal, as he broke Russian Law? If Sarah Palin became president (god forbid) would it be legal for her to have Jullian Assange assassinated? Would Arab states be in the right to assassinate Israeli politicians who ignore UN resolutions? -- Q Chris (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Not only did Bin Laden fail to draw the line, I don't believe, in his fantaticism, he even knew there existed such a line.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but I don't think you can advocate acting in a lawless way towards those who act lawlessly. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Bin Laden brought about the deaths of thousands of people - so did any number of other leaders, from Kennedy (Bay of Pigs? Vietnam?) to Bush-II (the conservative (by method, not politics) Iraq Body Count project reports over 10000 civilian dead). Now we may quibble about wether these actions are justified, and the "collateral damage" unavoidable, but the friends and families of innocent victims will find it hard to agree. Are there any circumstances in which you would consider a goon squad sent by some other state coming to the US, unannounced, to kill some person, acceptable? Pakistan is nominally an ally of the US, i.e. its not enemy territory. We can discuss the morality of the act, and the wisdom. But the fact that it is illegal is not seriously debatable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Bin laden was an international menace that the US Government decided had to be eliminated. That's the bottom line.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If you weigh the different possible ways the living OBL and the dead OBL could have been handled, it appears so far that the US took the optimal approach. The fact of so many Muslims dancing in the streets and cheering tells you a lot about his true standing in the world. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anybody has linked to Legal debate over the killing of Osama bin Laden yet. 81.98.38.48 (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

And a lot of people have chosen to debate the morality rather than the legality of killing bin Laden. HiLo48 (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all for your answers. However, I don't understand some of them. You say that Bin Laden was responsible for killing thousands of people and so that makes his killing moral. But murderers in US society get the chance to go to court. The government doesn't gun someone down because he killed his son. They take him to court. Moreover, Bin Laden was unarmed so that makes the killing even more illegal.

Also what's wrong if someone supports Bin Laden in court? Is it actually illegal to openly support Bin Laden? (Not that I do but if someone says "hey Bin Laden was a great man" can he be prosecuted?) But if someone just says in court diplomatically that Bin Laden should not have been killed what's wrong?

Finally, is there any evidence that Bin Laden has actually committed these killings? He may have bragged about them but that doesn't mean he did them. Could there be a case against the US because they killed him for no reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Also if Obama decided tomorrow to reinstate the draft for whatever reason, couldn't he be accused of killing millions (not just thousands) of people? I mean any president who has authorized the draft in the past should be responsible for any deaths of conscripts. But they're never prosecuted. So why is Bin Laden considered to be so hostile that he needs to be gunned down without a Fair trial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 10:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

First, let's make one thing clear: a person and a country have the right to defend themselves. This guy's organization committed an act of war against us. By knocking that guy off, which was also an act of war, we assure that he will never kill another person. I recall Bill Buckley once saying, "There is no such thing as a 'moral war', but there is such a thing as a 'defensible war'." Killing OBL was not necessarily "moral", but it was defensible. It was the optimal way to handle the guy. Put him on trial for war crimes (not for murder as such), and you'll have every nutcase in the world involved. Kill him but bury him on land and those nutcases will swarm around the burial place. Better to dispose of him like the garbage he was, as with Isoroku Yamamoto in World War II, and deal with whatever consquences may arise. And, no, you can't be prosecuted for making looney statements. There can be social consequences, though. FYI, the President cannot reactivate the draft by decree. It has to be an act of Congress. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Isoroku Yamamoto, Bugs? Our article that you linked on that particular Harvard alumnus and anti-war activist, says that his ashes were buried in Tama, Tokyo and Nagaoka, Niigata, after a full state funeral. Presumably the ashes are still there, for anyone that cares to visit and pay their respects, as I'm sure some do. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Anti-war activist" who was the leader of the Pearl Harbor attack. Some "anti-war" activist he was. Whether cremated or buried at sea, they be gawn. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This argument is flawed on the basis that the killing of Bin laden was not the only viable option for homeland defense. He could have been captured. Amnesty international appears to have inquired the US government as to why the killing was absolutely necessary and why Bin Laden was not captured instead. He was apparently unarmed. So I still don't see the legality of the killing. Moreover no human being is garbage. Bin Laden may have been an extremely dangerous criminal but that doesn't make him garbage. The word garbage in any case is extremely subjective.

Wasn't Saddam Hussain put on trial? It doesn't matter if the whole world is involved. The Nuremberg trials existed even though the criminals involved were 100 times more dangerous than Bin Laden is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

He wasn't either "unarmed". He was surrounded by folks firing guns at our folks. Had they immediately surrendered, maybe he would have been spared, then given a fair trial, and hanged the way Saddam was. That might have been more fun. But this was the optimal solution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There are a handful of questions being asked here. 1) Was the killing of bin Laden legal? 2) Was the killing of bin Laden moral/justified? 3) Why didn't they capture him instead?

As for 1, because bin Laden declared war on the US, and the US is currently at war with the organization that he created, the incident is subject to the rules of war rather than criminal justice, and so there is no serious legal problem with the kill. (It's similar to Operation Vengeance, as Bugs suggested.) As for 2, the general opinion appears to be that the killing was justified, but this is a matter of opinion rather than law. Each person must decide this question for themselves. As for 3, that's really the most serious question. A captured bin Laden would have created thorny legal and policy challenges for the Obama administration. Did they want him dead and not alive, just to simplify matters? Or did capture prove to be too difficult or dangerous in the heat of the moment? We can expect to hear much more about this in the days ahead. —Kevin Myers 14:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You asked at the outset, was the killing of ObL legal. I believe it was. 9-11 was a direct attack on New York and Washington and therefore an act of aggression aginst the United States. The US Congress responded by passing legislation within 3 days of 9-11 allowing military force against terrorists.(Pub. L. 107–40 (text) (PDF), 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001). This sited the US's need to act in self-defence (the UN Charter specifically allows a nation or nations to act in self-defence). The legislation said: . . .the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. As ObL was the mastermind or at the very least heavily implicated in the attacks, he was always going to be hunted down. Up until now, there is no problem with the legality--does the use of the term approriate force mean the killing of an unarmed terrorist? That determination of appropriate force lies with the special forces on the ground. They are trained to act as if the terrorist could be wearing an explosive belt and act accordingly. So, yes I believe ObL was lawfully killed. Btw, the BBC World tv channel covering the story locally in Pakistan today said that the Pakistani newspapers have all used the term killed--not murdered, assassinated or martyred. --Bill Reid | (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether the killing of OBL was legal or not is a matter of no relevance. It's happened, it can't be undone, and no one is ever going to be punished for it even if it was/were illegal by U.S., Pakistani, or international law. Debating its legality is as useful as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Pais (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

As a New Yorker who lost two good friends in the Twin Towers on 9/11, my response to those who question whether killing the SOB was legal or not is: "Who the fuck cares?" Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No kidding. And a flip-side question could be asked: Was Pakistan's harboring of this international fugitive legal? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Blueboar, I see you are an upholder of WP's five pillars of wisdom. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view--yes that response was very neutral. Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner--once again a very civil response. Congratulations. --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Safia Farkash

According to this, Safia Farkash's personal fortune is approximately $30 billion. What is the source of her wealth? She was only a nurse, so how she earned this money? And if it came from her association with Muamar Gaddafi, then why it is called personal fortune, not family fortune? --Reference Desker (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Did the citizens destroy any tanks during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989?

I've heard from some web forums that some citizens "burned" some tanks, with the aid of some militia which had been taught anti-tank tactics. Is it true?--Inspector (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Almost a saint, but stumbled on the last hurdle?

I was reading about Mother Theresa, and how Christopher Hitchens was called in during her beatification to act a bit like a "devil's advocate", arguing that she was not worthy of sainthood. I am not very knowlegeable in this topic, but it seems to me that if a person has come to this stage in the process, the road to sainthood is pretty straight. Are there any famous (preferably after 1900) examples of people who have "stumbled on the last hurdle", ie that something actually came up during the later stages of being declared a saint that made the church decide against sainthood? /Marxmax (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Not answering your question directly, but there always used to be a position in the Vatican called "devil's advocate", whose job it was solely to dig the dirt on candidates for the sainthood. The last pope got rid of the post, I believe. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

How very conveeenient. Pais (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Searching for a hymn

I'm trying to remember a hymn, which is probably originally in Latin given that it is sung to a fairly standard Gregorian-chant-style tune, with the usual loose time values. The problem is, I only knew it in English and the only bit I can remember goes "If thou takest thy lo-ove away/nothing good in man will stay/all our(?) (something) flee-ee-ee-ee away." I've tried searching for these phrases, and parts of these phrases, but nothing relevant turns up.

Ring a bell for anyone? 86.164.70.27 (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait, I've cross-referenced with someone else and I only got that half right. "If thou takest thy lo-ove away/nothing good in man will stay/all our goodness tu-u-urns to ill." and it probably starts Holy Spirit, lord of light. Possibly the Pentacost Sequence, veni sancte spiritus. 86.164.70.27 (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)