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

June 13

iParty with Victorious Premiere

Hi, last weekend on saturday june 4th was the Prmiere of the crossover iParty with Victorious. Did someone visit it and took some pictures of the Nickelodeon stars? If yes I would be very greatfull if this person upload some photos of the premiere on wikicommons. Thanks for any help. --Simon.hess (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Aristotle on proving that which is more certain by that which is less certain

If I remember correctly, at some point Aristotle defines as foolishness the desire to prove the truth of that which is "more certain" (prior?) by that which is "less certain" (consequent?). Can someone provide the quote? I am thinking either Metaphysics or Posterior Analytics, but it might be Sophistical Refutations. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it this, from Aristotle's Physics Book 2, chapter 1?

What nature is, then, and the meaning of the terms 'by nature' and 'according to nature', has been stated. That nature exists, it would be absurd to try to prove; for it is obvious that there are many things of this kind, and to prove what is obvious by what is not is the mark of a man who is unable to distinguish what is self-evident from what is not. (This state of mind is clearly possible. A man blind from birth might reason about colours.) Presumably therefore such persons must be talking about words without any thought to correspond.

--Antiquary (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is the exact quote, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Utilitarianism

Please provide some online resources which criticize utilitarianism from a strict philosophical (ethical) standpoint. --999Zot (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you read Utilitarianism#Criticism and defense? Gabbe (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Brooke Shields touching the heart of Henry IV of France

In the episode of Who Do You Think You Are? (U.S. TV series) Brooke Shields touched the heart of Henry IV of France at Saint Denis. I have many questions. Did the heart even last this long, over 400 years? Why would she touch it? Wouldn't the French and the people in charge of the museum/church be angry at her for touching it? Wouldn't it cause a great scandal? I mean it was an outrage when Abigail Kawananankoa sat on the royal throne of Hawaii, this instance is a heart not a chair!--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

A quasi-religious relic. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If we don't have an article on the hearts of the Kings of France, we probably should. In the meantime, you may find this .pdf interesting. It is a general article on the disposition of the hearts of the kings of France, but does specifically mention Henry IV's. As for why touch it - she's a descendant and probably thought it was a cool idea to be able to touch your gggg(etc)grandfather's heart, and the people of France would hardly mind as the nation is no longer a monarchy and monarchical symbols have lost their power. - Nunh-huh 07:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen the episode. I have to say: even though she exclaims "I've just touched Henry IV's heart", it looks as if she's merely rubbing her fingers on the top of the urn containing the heart, rather than touching the actual heart itself. Gabbe (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

See reliquary. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The heart of Henry IV of France was in the church St Louis located in the Prytanée National Militaire (town of La Flèche): "upon the death of Henry IV, a vast church was built, in which the hearts of Henry IV and his wife queen Marie de Medicis were enshrined." The hearts were burnt in 1793 during the French Revolution, but the ashes were collected by an inhabitant of La Flèche. The (hearted shape) urn is still in the chapel of the Prytanée (in a high place, out of reach of visitors). (Refer to the French Wiki page). One can see the urn in the upper left corner of this picture, and a closer view here. — AldoSyrt (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Utilitarian view on torture

What is the utilitarian view on torture? For example, is the torture of the few terror-suspects justified from a utilitarian standpoint? --999Zot (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Utilitarianism argues for the "greatest good" for the maximum number of people. Torture of a few terror-suspects are usually justified with the argument that it is necessary to save the lives of a lot of people. Is not it a utilitarian argument? --999Zot (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Peter Singer, a philosopher in the utilitarian tradition, has defended torture under certain circumstances, see [1]. See also the articles "Ethical arguments regarding torture" and "Ticking time bomb scenario" for some more info. Gabbe (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• It's a utilitarian argument, but it's wrong. The "ticking bomb" scenario has been heavily criticised as unrealistic. If I can use arbitrarily contrived situations, I can generate justifications for killing of half the population of the globe (minus one), or even all but the one perfect couple that will repopulate the globe with their perfect children, leading to untold future generations of bliss. In real life, you never know if your suspect really has the information. Moreover, information obtained under torture is inherently unreliable - in the short term, the victim can mislead, and in the long term he or she can be made to say anything, hence you will have a bad case of confirmation bias. In either case, you are likely to waste time following wrong clues, and to seriously alienate the "collateral damage" and its friends and relatives. Further, of course, there is the backlash. Torture some POWs, and 15 years later, John Rambo will take apart your country. More realistically, I'd strongly suspect that e.g. Noam Chomsky, or I, would not help appreciateapprehend terror suspects if we knew they would be mistreated. Thus, you erode support for law enforcement in your country. And lastly, there is the effect on the torturers. You are breeding a crop of psychopaths who think everything is justified to make things go their way. As for the moral dimension, our courts have serious issues with convicting innocent people even after a lengthy legal process. How many of your mere suspects will be innocent? How will your "enhanced interrogation personell" deal with the fact that maybe a third of the victims they pushed cattle prods into scrotums and vaginas of will turn out to be completely harmless people subject to a mixup? How will the responsible politicians? Would you want to vote for someone responsible for not one, but many such cases? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "help appreciate terror suspects"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Mostly passing on information, e.g. calling the police when I think I've seen a suspect. Or, in my case, help build computer systems for tracking suspects. Voting for parties running on a stricter security policy. Motivating a policeman by telling him that he's doing a good job instead of spitting at him. There are many possibilities, although each in particular is unlikely to come up for any given person. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The argument of erosion of legal rights for the individual would, I think, be applicable to utilitarians as well; if the practice of torture is made legal by law under some specified circumstances, then it greatly increases the possibility that it will be made legal under other circumstances as well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, utilitarians will disagree with each other. But it cannot be denied that "utilitarian" arguments in favour of torture and other intuitively repugnant practices can be and have been made, though more often, I suppose, by opponents of utilitarianism. And it is a basic problem in utilitarianism, how to combine some kind of individual dignity with measurements of aggregate "good".

At any rate, one should note that justifying torture with the "ticking bomb" scenario is not necessarily a utilitarian argument, since the bad guy to be tortured is typically assumed to be "guilty", to have forfeited their rights by their own actions. The usual utilitarian or vulgar-utilitarian calculus of one victim versus many victims is unnecessary – Dirty Harry tortured one bad guy to save one victim and the audience cheered him just as loudly as they do Jack Bauer. Which suggests the whole point is justified blood-lust and revenge fantasy, the victims being mainly a prop. (BTW, in Terrence Malick's early version of the Dirty Harry script, the bad guy was himself a Punisher-type vigilante, but that potentially fantasy-spoiling twist didn't make it into the movie.)

As for Singer, if you read that article carefully you will notice he does not directly make an argument for torture there. Singer just says what many others have said: The rules should unequivocally ban torture, but one can imagine circumstances where anybody would decide to torture the prisoner, no matter what the rules say. If it worked, they'd be a hero; if it didn't, they might be punished for trying. There is a tragic dimension there.

À propos authors: Sam Harris is one author who, while not advocating torture, has noted the human tendency to overvalue the needs of a physically present individual ("neighbour", in Christian terms) in comparison to those of more numerous but absent individuals. Harris compares it to an optical illusion and suggests we need to develop objective measuring instruments, as it were.--Rallette (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the moral questions, it is often argued that the tortured will tell their captors what they want to hear, whether it's true or not. The news stories around the taking-down of Osama bin Laden, the biggest post-9/11 target, indicated that the information of his whereabouts was obtained through normal investigation rather than through torture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the utilitarian viewpoint is probably more lenient to do with torture than, say, deontological systems. It is possible, in any utilitarian decision that the "price" is reached for a given situation. Some, such as Mr Schulz, above, clearly put such a high value on not torturing people, having a world without torture, etc. that this requirement is never met. But logically, the decision is there. If we believed "torture was objectively wrong" and took it as some sort of universal categorical imperative, we wouldn't need this discussion. Torture is, too, an imperfect knowledge system. One is unlikely to be aware of the consequences of ones actions in doing it. This complicated matters considerably, since one could say that the outcomes one is aware of would be a net positive, whilst accepting that there could be further negative consequences (the information being wrong, as Bugs mentions), and thus not torturing someone. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Utilitarianism doen't specifically permit torture, but nor does it ban it - utilitarianism is about outcomes rather than actions, so an action, such as torture, isn't the focus of the debate. If it can be shown that torturing someone will result in more good than bad (noting that there is a lot of debate about what constitutes good: for example, Peter Singer is a preference utilitarian, so "good" with his approach is the meeting of preferences), then the approach would permit torture. With utilitarianism, you don't necessarily ask "is <this action> wrong?" so much as "how much good will result from <this action>?".

The problem is that working out whether there is more good than bad is tricky. For example, one instance where someone was tortured might bring about more good, but it also might create a devaluing of life, causing issues in society, that would then in the long term bring about more bad than good. Or, as Baseball Bugs pointed out, the effectiveness might actually be low, so while someone might perceive it to be a net benefit in terms of good, the reality might be far from that. And it should be noted that the person being tortured has preferences (such as not being tortured), as do his or her family, and many other people - thus it might be the case that more preferences (if you use that approach) are met by not torturing the person. One of the arguments against utilitarianism is that these sorts of sums are virtually impossible to calculate, and long term effects hard to predict. - Bilby (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The OP's question arose only because someone thinks its answer might be yes, torture is justifiable. Consider the natural consequences of that affirmative answer. It makes torture methods a legitimate subject for training, exercising, examinations, demonstrations and seminars. Sooner or later there will be a "Torture for Dummies" book and torture tutorial clips on YouTube. Torture experts will offer consulting services. We can have torture competitions. A Miss Torture pageant is sure to be popular and a coming TV hit might be "America's Funniest Tortures". The Fisher-Price Little Torturer toy will be on sale in Toys "R" Us in time for next Christmas. Catholicism will enjoy a resurgence with publication of popular editions of Ad extirpanda and Malleus Maleficarum, with broadcasts of Auto-da-fés from the Vatican. The Wikibook on Torture will need attention from an expert. The OP may consider Mathew 7:7 "Ask, and Ye Shall Receive". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite an overdrawn set of consequences. Many people have argued in favour of torture, and I'm yet to see the videos on YouTube. Since a "war" is the murder of people, except justified, and people don't go around murdering people all the time, I call your bluff on your slippery slope. That's not to say I am in favour of torture, of course. But it's happened, and there have been proponents of it, more American than British. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"except justified" . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

We certainly have videos and "war experts". We have paintball and shooting competitions. The Russian army recently had the Miss Russian Army pageant. We have action figures and other military toys, from a plastic AK-47 to a model M1A1. The analogy is not that far fetched... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You're merely "cutting" the slippery slope at a different point: we have these things, and yet no explosion in murders (certainly, it mostly correlates with other factors). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's no bluff Grandiose. See U.S. Army and CIA interrogation manuals. Torture was taught by CIA. From the www.infowars.com ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used}/kubark-the-cias-1963-torture-manual/ CIA 1963 torture manual:] "people who are exposed to coercive procedures will talk and usually reveal some information...The following are the principal coercive techniques of interrogation: arrest, detention, deprivation of sensory stimuli through solitary confinement or similar methods, threats and fear, debility, pain,...most people underestimate their capacity to withstand pain." On YouTube watch Is this torture?, Torture room, Stretch torture and kindly catholics (videos). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

What you should know about utilitarianism. The utilitarianists pretend that they are able to think through the utility of actions - in fact, nobody can. God alone can see the world in which torture is accepted by all society under certain specific conditions, and God alone can see the world in which it is in total disuse. As for utility at points between these extremes: God alone... --188.28.126.160 (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

One important part of this question that needs to be addressed is what version of utilitarianism you are talking about. The strictest version of Utilitarianism would say that torture is a moral imperative any time that it makes more people happy than are made unhappy. The trick is measuring, as always. A strict Utilitarian of the most early primitive forms would say that if more people are made happy by publicly torturing certain kinds of criminals than the criminal is made unhappy then it is a moral IMPERATIVE to torture them. Rule utilitarianism might have an issue with that because "torture convicted criminals" is actually a version of the rule/maxim "impose societal norms using brutal force". HominidMachinae (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A question about copyright?

Let's say you want to request permission to copy a book, however all of the authors have died, the publishers closed down and it is not clear as to who currently owns the rights to the book. How do you ask permission in this case? 112.210.183.211 (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

See, for a start, Orphan works and Orphan works in the United States.--Rallette (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That's called an orphan work and different countries have different rules regarding them. That article should give you some useful information. --Tango (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Is that how Mad secured the rights to Alfred E. Neuman? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

We can't answer questions about the legality, and in any case the law will vary from one country to another. But in the UK it is quite common for the person copying the material to add a disclaimer along the lines of "Every effort has been made to trace copyright in the following, but if any omission has been made please let us know in order that this may be acknowledged in any future edition."--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I read the article on orphan works and it didn't answer my question, which is how to seek permission to use orphaned works. How do you do so? 112.210.183.211 (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Professional publishing companies employ specialists (usually consultancies) who are experts in ferreting out who owns the copyright for a given work. Such people have extensive knowledge of the histories of given publishers (who bought who, who went out of business and sold their IP assets to whom) and lots of contacts in publishing and academia. If these people fail to track down who owns a given work, a professional publisher would most likely not publish at all (they even use these people to track down the ownership of relatively small sections of text, for use in things like anthologies). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 18:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright holders are not required to give their contact information. You copy at your own legal peril. Currently, a work enjoys copyright protection in the US for a period of the life of the author plus 70 years after his or her death. In the case of anonymously published works, copyright is valid for 90 years from publication. Provided a copyright holder did not assign his or her reproduction rights over to a third party, these would pass through the author's estate to his or her heirs. If the rights were assigned to a publishing company and that company became defunct, rights would be held by creditors of that company and possibly sold to another. You could expect damages for illegal copyright at several thousand dollars for each copy. There is no legal status of an "orphaned work." It isn't recognized by the law. If a copyright holder wishes to remain anonymous and only reveal him or herself after a lawsuit is filed, the law permits it. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Courts in most countries will be very reluctant to award "several thousand dollars" if the author can demonstrate a good-faith effort to locate the copyright holders and get their permission. They are much more likely to award reasonable value (cents per copy in the case of, say, a page in a book or so). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone point me to any high-profile lawsuits over the use of presumed "orphan" intellectual property which actually did turn out to have owners, who then sued? Has it ever happened? Eliyohub (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Legit Libyan rebels?

What makes the Libyan rebels the legitimate interlocutor of the Libyan people? Quest09 (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a matter of opinion, of course, but see legitimacy (political). The idea been connected to the idea of consent of the governed since the Enlightenment, but other bases for legitimacy have also historically been held. In Libya, the nations who have granted diplomatic recognition to the National Transitional Council have stated that the Council best represents the Libyan people's goals and democratic aspirations, or something similar. Neutrality^talk 15:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

They're not necessarily "legitimate interlocutors", but if they're trying to prevent the dictatorship oppress much of the population, that's fine by me, and Libyans will surely tidy up some constitutional loose ends later. Let's not pretend that the Gaddafi regime is more legitimate. bobrayner (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• At the end of the day, they assert that they are a state and they attempt to enforce their views upon other claimants. Other forms of legitimacy are dependent upon the balance of forces within a hegemonic culture (for example: parliamentary democracy). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Così fan tutte

Mozart's Così fan tutte contains themes such that, if it were published today, it would be considered sexist. However it is never a good idea to apply modern labels and ideas such as sexist to a time period when the social mores were drastically different, which is why I want to know, how would Mozart's contemporary female spectators/audience members have reacted to this opera? And would his male spectators have seen it as humorously accurate, or humorous but exaggerated? Regards :) 72.128.95.0 (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That is, by the way, not the only such opera of Mozart. You could say the same of Die Zauberflöte. – b_jonas 17:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This is where the librettist comes into his own, because Mozart "only" wrote the music. The people responsible for the stories and the words and whatever sexism was there, were Lorenzo Da Ponte (Così fan tutte) and Emanuel Schikaneder (The Magic Flute). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. However, may I respectfully point out that the question has not yet been answered. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a loophole in Jante Law?

Summarizing Jante Law: We are so equal that you may not do any better than us.

A rather puzzling one. In the Scandinavian culture were the Tall poppy syndrome soars, I have a few counteracting ideas – though not sure if it may work.

For the religious (though Scandinavia isn’t well known for it’s religiousness), one could have argued that the followers of a religion must try to excel in everything they do as a way of thanking God. Which would have been a good counterculture point; alas only before the 1940s.

For atheists, it’s a bit tougher. I have given it some thought – how about patriotism?
“I’m not doing it for myself, I’m doing it for “charity”/“our group”/ “company” / (insert Nordic Country name)”.
In some Nordic countries where everyone gets a piece of the pie (they’re much more group-orientated than the American individualistic approach), the bigger the pie… I mean, it’s for their own benefit! Give the ambitious guy a break, man!

Could it work? Any other ideas?
Like to hear from you.
PS. Oh, regard emigration as not part of the solution.
41.247.34.131 (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head with the individual versus group mentality. A talented individual may either choose to rise to the top, or help everybody else rise. The same skills can be applied either way. Thus, the Jante Law becomes an indictment of the selfishness of the individual, for not choosing to devote their talents to helping others, but rather engaging in selfish pursuits. StuRat (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

In Australia the Tall Poppy is one who serves themselves and does well, instead of serving others and doing well. The Tall Poppy is also one who draws attention to personal success and publicly revels in it. Someone who achieves success working for the group (Bob Hawke, ACTU Leader) is often perceived differently from someone who achieves success where it appears to be for themselves (Bob Hawke, Prime Minister). I'm sure you're aware that Tall Poppy / Jante Law arises in circumstances where the material circumstances of being fairly heavily emphasise collective production; but, where there's a generally shared standard of social living. Living outside the standard becomes a case of beggar my neighbour little tolerated by people who see themselves as peers (and have the social capacity to lop the heads off of Tall Poppies). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

As You Like It

Here's an extract from Shakespeare's wikisource:As You Like It/Act II.

ROSALIND. Alas, poor shepherd! searching of thy wound, I have by hard adventure found mine own.

TOUCHSTONE. And I mine. I remember, when I was in love, I broke my sword upon a stone, and bid him take that for coming a-night to Jane Smile: and I remember the kissing of her batlet, and the cow's dugs that her pretty chapp'd hands had milk'd: and I remember the wooing of a peascod instead of her; from whom I took two cods, and giving her them again, said with weeping tears, 'Wear these for my sake.' We that are true lovers run into strange capers; but as all is mortal in nature, so is all nature in love mortal in folly.

Various annotated texts are available that explain what Touchstone is talking about: the meaning of "batlet" and his encounter with the pea-plant, the folly of love, and so on. But despite lots of searching I've yet to find an explanation of the part in italics, perhaps because the language used in it is already comprehensible to a modern reader. Yet its meaning is completely unclear to me, perhaps because I'm missing a cultural reference. Why, being in love, would he break his sword upon a stone, and how would that help him see his girl? And who is the "him" in "bid him take that"? [It looks anaphoric but doesn't seem to refer to anybody in the preceding lines that I haven't shown in this extract.] It's Question Time (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, breaking a sword is typically symbolic of quitting a fight. Since Touchstone threatened William the shepherd, could that be the fight he was claiming he quit ? StuRat (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

But William and Touchstone were vying for the affection of Audrey; this passage seems to be about Touchstone's earlier dalliance with "Jane Smile". (Some sources say that "Jane Smile" is actually a generic name for a woman, should it be read as "Jane Doe" and refers to Audrey?) It's Question Time (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I take it to mean a generic woman, or perhaps a generic friendly woman, and, in this case, Audrey. StuRat (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You may well be aware of this, but in the German translation, Touchstone is translated literally as Probstein, wheres Jane Smile is more figuratively "Hannchen Freundlich" - so yes, "generically friendly woman" makes a lot of sense. However, he can't be referring to quitting the fight with William the shepherd over Audrey, because that doesn't happen until Scene I of wikisource:As You Like It/Act V? In fact Audrey doesn't appear in the text at all until Scene III of wikisource:As You Like It/Act III. It's Question Time (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that settles it then. An appeal to the German original :) 188.28.126.160 (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It could be the idea of an offering to the gods so that they will look kindly on him and grant him his wish. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a fairly direct sexual allegory going on here. Shakespeare was writing for an educated audience of men restricted from marriage and legitimate sexual conduct. Rosalind searches "her wound" which is both the heart and the vulva. Touchstone is obviously describing a jealousy of every day objects: breaking the sword upon the stone is an act of relinquishing combat, but also a phallic image. Jane Smile relates obviously to Jane Doe, and smile has a meaning relating to comeliness and beckoning. It is also a plain reference to the vagina. See also the "dugs" of the cow instead of the breasts of the lover. Peas in the pod are usually a reflection on the clitoris, but "cod" has an archaic meaning of bag or of scrotum. I think the passage is a triple: a discussion on the wounds of love, a discussion of silly relations with material objects for the sake of love (kissing a beating bat, or a piece of clothing), and a discussion of casual sex with "Jane Smile" (think "Jane Easy"). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Touchstone is describing an imaginary fight, in which he pretended that a stone was his rival for the affection of a milkmaid named Jane Smile. He hit his supposed rival (in reality, the stone) so hard that his sword broke. John M Baker (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This makes sense. By implication, Jane had sat on the stone at night. Marco polo (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the first proposed explanation here that seems to explain what the "him" refers to - i.e. he bids the stone "take that". (StuRat proposed "him" to be William, but that does not make sense in the context of the play.) It's Question Time (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with the marines training slogan "this is your weapon, that is your gun?" In this case 'sword' means penis - he thumps himself in the testicles (known both as stones and cods) and bids his willy 'take that!" for "coming a-night" (come on chaps - you were all young once, and your mum must have washed a lot of sheets in her time). Billy Waggledagger was playing to the cheap seats here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So in this explanation, "him" refers to his "sword"? It's Question Time (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If in doubt, consult [Filthy Shakespeare by Pauline Keirnan, 2006. Check out the table of contents! BrainyBabe (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Oldest son of King Abdullah

We currently have at least two people's article both claiming to be the eldest son of Abdullah of Saudi Arabia: Mutaib bin Abdullah and Khaled bin Abdullah. Abdullah's article mentions four wives and seven sons but doesn't name them. Khaled's article incorrectly claimed that he died (from a recent press mistake over his cousin's death) and that he was passed over for next in line for the throne for Mutaib which is a misunderstanding as well. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Since "Saudi state media" reported that Khaled was the eldest son, I'd go with him, even though they also stated he had died (obviously he got better). I see only one rather dubious ghit for Mutaib being the eldest. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure Saudi state media was at fault? The source used in our article is the AP [2]. While some of the original sources report his death as coming from state media, it's obviously possible state media correctly reported who died and other news agencies picked up the wrong guy as having died. I haven't yet been able to find a source which says state media made the mistake although I don't speak Arabic. Nil Einne (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Some background: The erroneous reports appear to date 11 and 12 June with the correction dating 12 June. Anyway after quite a bit of searching I finally found (most of the English sources from Saudi Arabia don't seem to have bothered with the death) an English language Saudi source [3] which claims to be dated 10 June and updated 10 June (although media organisations are sometimes crap or lie about that sort of thing) and appears to report the correct person. (Some later searching also finds this Arabia MSN site provide by Gulf in the media and which is dated 11 June also says more or less the same thing.) It calls him a prince, I guess this is correct although I don't know for sure.

Interesting enough all sources including those talking about the guy that died as the son say he was 54. After the erroneous death reports, a birth date of 1957 was added to our article. But another source which was added after the death, a book from when Abdullah was still crown prince says he was born in 1950 (and also says he's the eldest son). This strongly suggests the one who died was 54 but the son who didn't die is not (and if the AP had checked their facts like the age they would have realised something was wrong).

P.S. Mildly interesting Princess Munira bint Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al Saud daughter of crown prince Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud also died recently [4]. Came across this because I found a bunch of condolences [5] [6] although I later found one for Khaled as well [7]

Nil Einne (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

June 14

George Washington and cost being a factor

The Newt mentioned something in this hilarious debate about GW saying cost was a factor in war. I can't find it on Wikiquote. Could someone find it if it exists, or confirm that it doesn't exist before a Gengrich-supporter makes one up? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd have thought that it would be difficult to find a reliable source for a statement that George Washington didn't say something on the subject. One good reason why verifiability is important. Let the Newtophiles (Newtologists?) show that he did... (BTW, for the benefit of those who don't follow the Newt, what 'hilarious debate' are you referring to?)

He must have gotten the quote from somewhere in the Mediawiki project is my reasoning. Ah yes, because that worked out so well with the Palinites. =p Why, Lulzstock 2011, AKA the Republican Debate of course. It was pretty funny but my dad and I were wondering if there was a quote from somewhere about it. Let's be honest, where else do most of these politicos get their info from? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Are all people who are of Jewish descent descended from Israelites?

Are all people who are of Jewish descent descended from Israelites? And how did people change skin color from dark skin people in the middle east to modern day Jewish White Americans? Neptunekh2 (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

For the most part we are. Though it's not so much the Israelites (except those that fled from the destruction of Israel) as the Judahites we are descended from. There is some article about our genetics somewhere, but I am too lazy to retrieve it. Most of those Jewish White Americans came from Europe. Not really sure on that skin colour one as there was not much mixing between Jews and goyim really - both as a result of the Jewish marriage laws and the fact that many Christians wouldn't marry a Jew. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

People in the Middle East aren't really all that dark-skinned as a whole. No more so than Greeks or Italians. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that too. You know we are apparently most closely related (when talking abou Europeans) to Tuscans and Greeks. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

One factor on the skin color is simply tanning. That is, people in the Middle East get more Sun exposure and thus have darker tans, all things being equal. StuRat (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say tanning is the major factor for the darker appearance of most near-easterners in practice. Check images at Saddam Hussein, Massoud Barzani, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Ali Khamenei, Ruhollah Khomeini, Bashar al-Assad, Michel Suleiman. Those skin colours would not look out of place in most European cities. However, skin pigmentation is also one of the properties that reacts quickly to evolutionary pressures. The migration out of Africa, when we presumably were all rather dark, is only ~70000 years ago. Pigmentation is controlled by a number of different genes, hence selection in current diverse populations can operate on existing alleles - we don't need to re-evolve darker or lighter skin from scratch with new mutations. This paper argues that skin coloration in humans is highly adaptive, that some populations probably have gone through alternating periods of depigmentation and pigmentation, and that populations that have stayed in place 10000-20000 years are already optimally adapted to their local UV regime. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the tanning thing...

• On a relationship-by-relationship basis, intermarriage may be infrequent, but for much of history, rules against mingling would have been hard to enforce, when neither the state nor religious authorities had much knowledge of, or control over, the actions of random villagers. (The atrocities of the 20th century were enabled by extensive government powers, and big piles of data, which previous governments would have been unable to mobilise). Even the local priest, probably himself a local man, maybe only separated from illiteracy by one generation, might have been a bit... syncretic, shall we say. So, over a hundred generations, there's bound to have been some cumulative effect of mingling. Pure blood would be very difficult to maintain in the long term unless the population is isolated on a remote island.
• There could even be outright deceit to obtain the benefits of being in a different religious/ethnic community (different taxes, access to shared resources, or a restricted profession, exemption from conscription &c). For instance, in the Ottoman empire, different taxation of different raya led to some people lying about their religion; one highly privileged group ended up having to use certificates to prove their ancestry, but then a problem of forged certificates emerged... any one ancestor would have been unlikely to lie this way, but the cumulative effect over a long history could be quite significant. bobrayner (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The answer to the first question posed at the top of the thread is no. Anyone can convert to Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. See Ruth... and thereby King David... and thereby Moshiach. All direct descendants of the brilliantly-named Eglon, King of Moab. --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say there is a high probability that everyone (of whatever ethnic background) is descended from the Israelites (or to put it more accurately... everyone has at least one Israelite in their ancestry). Its a simple matter of genetics... people interbreeding over generations and generations. Blueboar (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I agree. If you define "descended from" as "has at least one ancestor among", then it is not impossible. The Middle East always was a crossroads, and with Alexander and the Crusaders invading from the Northwest, the Egyptians from the South, Romans from the West, Persians from the Northeast, Arabs from the East, and Mongols from the Far East, not to mention the Phoenicians colonizing throughout the Mediterranean, the region has certainly spread its genes widely across the globe. How many pure-blooded Australian Aborigines or Amazon Indians have converted to Judaism? And secondly, of course, it's not that easy to convert to Judaism. See our article Who is a Jew? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually most Jews have not been converts except for those Khazars who did not last and were presumably converted to Islam and a few people who converted. Most Jews are from a similar heritage. Here is the article. There was a bit of interbreeding, but not much. Most of the Jews you see today are those left from the ones that didn't convert and get absorbed into their host populations. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that article is interesting indeed: In July 2010 Bray's et al. using SNP microarray techniques and linkage analysis[49] "confirms that there is a closer relationship between the Ashkenazim and several European populations (Tuscans, Italians, and French) than between the Ashkenazim and Middle Eastern populations" and that European "admixture is considerably higher than previous estimates by studies that used the Y chromosome" adding that their study "support the model of a Middle Eastern origin of the Ashkenazim population followed by subsequent admixture with host Europeans or populations more similar to Europeans" and that their data imply that modern Ashkenazi Jews are perhaps even more similar with Europeans than modern Middle Easterners. The level of admixture with European population was estimated between 35 to 55%. - I guess that it was more than a bit of interbreeding and conversion. Flamarande (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ethical foundation of democracy

What is the ethical foundation of democracy? Is democracy based on deontology or consequentialist ethics? Since democracy believes the political system will work in a way which the majority wants or the government policy should reflect the wish to the majority (most of the people), is democracy a utilitarian concept? --999Zot (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, yes. In veyr general terms, deontological ethics would implies that there were rules that society should follow; either you follow them or you don't. So there would be justification for laying down laws that gave weight to your ethical rules, even if your rules were not popular. That is, philosophers from the deontological school are less likely to have a problem with autocracy that consequentialists.

Even with this in mind, that utilitarians would bend always bend to the will of the majority is quite another thing entirely. They would be feel as bound as anybody to point out if the general public were being shortsighted, for example. But they would be more likely to support democracy on the whole, I feel. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 13:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that democracy as a really existing political system is the product of centuries of social evolution and a testament to the ability of people to achieve great things without agreeing on what it is they are doing. It has no coherent philosophical foundation. People with greatly divergent ideas about justice and the good have made contributions to its development, and the project is by no means finished.--Rallette (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The "ethical foundation of democracy" is the individual human. That is to say that a democracy is rule by the people, meaning each individual person. Each person has rights to be respected by the whole, and a constitution is an agreement between the whole and the individual. Even elections (fair ones that is) require the support of 50%+1 in order to approve a candidate or measure. Do you see that "+1?" That's a human. Democracy did not come about as a form of government until after humanism came about after the Renaissance. Framing the question as either consequentialist or deontological is just one limited way to look at it. If the point of your question is that it has to be one or the other, then it's got to be deontological. The founding fathers appealed to principles, not data.Greg Bard (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

International News Photographic Service

What was the International News Photographic Service? It played an important role in the article de:Michael Siegel. (See http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/our_collections/siegel/index.asp for an English report.) — Sebastian 07:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"International+News+Photographic+Service"&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1 Google News returns various articles with pictures it supplied from 1933 to 1935, but no other dates. Although I can't prove it, I strongly suspect that they are the same people as International News Photos, which was a division of the International News Service. Warofdreams talk 11:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds very possible, but I don't want to write that in an article without a source ,and it seems hard to find any source for that. — Sebastian 06:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

why are people wrong

why do people have ideas that are obviously wrong. if they aren't smart enough to see how obviously wrong the idea is, wouldn't they at least differ to more learned men and women? 188.28.126.160 (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably for reasons similar to the reasons you spell and use grammar incorrectly. (It's defer, not differ. And sentences should start with capital letters.) I'm not trying to be smart here, but just highlighting different perspectives. To me, correct spelling and grammar are quite important. To you, not so important. Or perhaps we have had different levels of education. Also not a criticism, just an observation. I teach high school kids and hear dumb ideas every day. I generally don't tell the kids their ideas are dumb, but try to point them in what I believe is the right direction. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

They shouldn't really start with conjunctions, either... Tevildo (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please could you present one example of an idea that people, in your experience, have... that is "obviously wrong"? Please make it a really good example, that is both definitely "wrong" and obviously so. --Dweller (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

We have a List of common misconceptions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

When people believe something, it is not obvious to them that what they believe is wrong. They have their own reasons for believing that their ideas are right. What may be obvious to you is not obvious to them. As to why people don't defer to those who are more learned, most people trust their own judgment more than the judgment of others. They may feel that the learning of those who are "learned" is not really valuable, or that it has blinded the learned to a more mystical awareness of things or to "God's truth". Alternatively, they may feel that the learning of the "learned" has caused them to lose touch with reality, and that people such as themselves who don't waste time with silly books have a better grasp on reality. Marco polo (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually had a class on this in the context of archaeology. Reasons are all over the board. Some people are stupid, some things just seem to make sense, etc. I don't feel like going into detail about it, but there are lots of reasons. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

From a psychological point of view, the questioner may find List of cognitive biases helpful, particularly the section on theoretised causes of cognitive bias. There are lots of ways to get stuff wrong! It's sometimes argued that having a brain that gets stuff wrong may actually have evolved because it has certain benefits (for example there's a trade-off between getting a judgment call correct, and the time taken to make that judgment call - and in the wild, slow but perfect decision-making can be fatal, whereas decisions that are fast but not 100% reliable may save your life more often than endangering it).

Especially relevant to the original question: the overconfidence effect "is a well-established bias in which someone's subjective confidence in their judgments is reliably greater than their objective accuracy, especially when confidence is relatively high. For example, in some quizzes, people rate their answers as "99% certain" but are wrong 40% of the time. It has been propose that a metacognitive trait mediates the accuracy of confidence judgments, but this trait's relationship to variations in cognitive ability and personality remains uncertain. Overconfidence is one example of a miscalibration of subjective probabilities."

Even more extreme: the Dunning–Kruger effect "is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes. The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning conclude, 'the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.'"

So, if you're overconfident that you're correct, you're unlikely to defer to "higher authority". A fascinating interview with Dunning in the NYT includes the famous instance of an incompetent bank robber:

Wheeler had walked into two Pittsburgh banks and attempted to rob them in broad daylight. What made the case peculiar is that he made no visible attempt at disguise. The surveillance tapes were key to his arrest. There he is with a gun, standing in front of a teller demanding money. Yet, when arrested, Wheeler was completely disbelieving. “But I wore the juice,” he said. Apparently, he was under the deeply misguided impression that rubbing one’s face with lemon juice rendered it invisible to video cameras. ... As Dunning read through the article, a thought washed over him, an epiphany. If Wheeler was too stupid to be a bank robber, perhaps he was also too stupid to know that he was too stupid to be a bank robber — that is, his stupidity protected him from an awareness of his own stupidity.

I think "but I wore the juice" is a perfect illustration of how "people have ideas that are obviously wrong" - but " if they aren't smart enough to see how obviously wrong the idea is, wouldn't they at least differ to more learned men and women?" is a more open question. It's Question Time (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Smart people are definitely no less subject to contradiction and delusion than the less intelligent. If anything, more so. The problem is how people deal with contradictions in their reasoning. When he comes upon a contradiction in his thought, the wise person looks for the wrong premise or the mistake in his reasoning and corrects it. The not so wise average person drops the subject and develops an antipathy to discussing touchy subjects. The brilliant fool takes his contradictions as unquestionable givens, and rewrites reality to conform to delusions too painful for him to resolve. μηδείς (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Singapore

This question is related to Coat of arms of Singapore. From that page you can see that the image of the coat of arms is different from the one shown on the coin below. In fact newer coins issued after 199x (can't remember which year), changed the crest on the coin, so it is identical to the actual coat of arms. Is it due to a change in the image of the coat of arms itself? or something else? I can't find it in the article itself and I'm very curious to find out. Thanks.--Ben.MQ (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The difference is in the ribbon.--Ben.MQ (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

In heraldry, it's important to distinguish between the elements of a 'coat of arms' that are fixed (by the wording or 'blazon' of the 'letters patent' or equivalent issued by the body granting the arms) and mere stylistic variations, which can be considerable - much more so than in a typical commercially registered trade mark, for example.

In the instance of the Arms of Singapore, they must include the five 5-pointed stars arranged in a circle (with a single star at the top) above a horizontal upward curving crescent moon, all in the centre of a red shield [these elements themselves constitute the "coat of arms"]. If the whole 'heraldic achievement' (or "arms") is depicted, it also must include the unadorned golden lion and (naturally coloured or 'proper'?) tiger supporters on their respective sides, probably the golden plant (palm?) fronds on which they are standing, and certainly the motto ribbon beneath, whose gold letters and blue background are probably also specified. (Note that this 'achievement' does not include a 'crest', which is a decoration worn on top of (usually) a jousting 'helm' (and can be displayed on its own), or several others elements that can be included in an heraldic achievement but are not in this one).

However, provided that those verbally defined elements are followed, the detailed shape and proportions of the shield, the exact 'tinctures' (i.e. colours, though in heraldry that word defines a special subset of tinctures), the artistic style and non-specified details of the supporters, the shape of the ribbon, etc, are entirely up to the artist who creates a particular realisation of the arms. Although the letters patent will include a depiction, it is intended to be for general illustrative purposes only, not as an exact template whose every stylistic detail must be faithfully followed.

Beyond an individual artist's style, general styles in heraldic art go in and out of fashion along with fashions in society. For example, the 'mantling' which always hangs down the back of a helm (as a sunshade) was originally quite small and straight edged. Through the middle ages it became (in the UK) increasingly larger and more ragged edged, in line with the dagging of contemporary fashions and due to actual or notional wear and tear on the battle/jousting field. In the 19th century (when the physical armour and arms being depicted had mostly ceased to exist) it typicallly came to resemble a pile of seaweed. In the mid-20th century Don Pottinger and other heraldic artists returned to a much more simple, "realistic" style. Today it is usually shown somewhat elaborate, but less so that a century and more ago. All other elements of the achievement, as well as drawing styles in general, went through similar changes in fashion.

That said, although heraldic authorities allow considerable latitude in how arms are depicted (within their blazons' limits), the particular owner of a particular grant of arms might enforce considerably more restriction on depictions of them, especially in official governmental contexts. My own County Council in the UK has issued a long and detailed style manual, including exact colour definitions and physical and electronic samples of its arms, for official use, and it's likely that the Government of Singapore has done something similar. These owner proscriptions, however, are independent of looser heraldic authority rules, and might be changed from time to time at that owner's whim. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.158 (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the informative reply--Ben.MQ (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Truth and reality

What is the difference between truth and reality? --999Zot (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you read our articles truth and reality? The definitions of these 2 words give you a good idea. Truth is "the state of being in accord with a particular fact or reality". --Lgriot (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I read it, but has difficulty understanding the concept. In the statement "The earth revolves around the sun". Is it reality or truth? --999Zot (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The statement is true, because it is in accordance with reality. So that statement is in a state of "truth". Gabbe (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This is known as the correspondence theory of truth. One of the problems with this theory is that it sees "truth" as a contingent property, which depends on the attributes of a changeable and possibly ineffable reality. It is not clear, for example, how the correspondence theory can be used to determine the truth of analytic propositions such as 1+1=2 or "if P and (if P then Q) then Q". One alternative approach is the coherence theory of truth. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gabe. The earth revolves around the sun, that is the reality of our world. Someone saying "The earth revolves around the sun" speaks the truth. In English you can't say that they "speak the reality", but you could say they describe reality, which is a way to say something true. --Lgriot (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Another point. When I say "The sky is blue" it is certainly not the reality, because the sky is not blue. So what will be the nature of this proposition? --999Zot (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

All you can say is "The sky appears blue to me". This is one of the problems with the correspondence theory - you can never be absolutely certain that your perception of reality corresponds with reality itself. Thus you can say "x is true because x corresponds with my perception of reality" - which is a disappointingly subjective theory of truth - but you can't say with 100% confidence "x is true because x is real" because you never completely know what reality is. Even "the Earth revolves around the Sun" is not entirely true, because it is more accurate to say "the Earth and the Sun revolve around the centre of mass of the Solar System". Gandalf61 (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The statement "The sky is blue" is far too ambiguous to be assigned as simple "true" or "false" value, by any sense of the word "truth". What to do you mean by "the sky"? Which sky, and at what time? And which shade of "blue" are we talking about? It's a bit like saying "John is tall". Which "John"? And "tall" compared to whom? When we sloppily use words in a way that doesn't unambiguously refer to specific real-world phenomena, or to precise mathematical statements, we often run into fuzziness problems like these. Gabbe (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The King on the Radio

A while ago I remember reading about the first address that (I think it was King George VI) the king made on the radio to the population, and apparently it started with something like "Hello boys and girls, this is your king speaking". Is this right? Can anyone let me know the exact text? Jeremy Wordsworth (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The earliest address I can find that he gave was the 1937 Christmas speech. There is audio online in various places e.g. [8], but I can't find a transcript. He apparently gave a notoriously bad speech in 1925, of which there is no recording[9], there is a recording of him in Glasgow in 1938[10], and he spoke more regularly from 1939 following the start of World War Two: the text and a recording of his first address on the war is here[11], and he also spoke to the nation at Christmas that year[12]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It would not surprise me to hear that George VI started a radio address with those words (one directed specifically at children)... but apparently he did not open his first radio address as King with those words. Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There may be some confusion with a children's radio broadcast by Princess Elizabeth. I'm still looking though. Alansplodge (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't found anything yet, but the intro to the Princess's speech above mentions an earlier visit by the King and Queen to the BBC during the recording of Children's Hour. I wonder if the King made a speech then? Alansplodge (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In the above newsreel film of an exhibition in Glasgow at the 9:52.32 mark there are visible parked on the track two rows of about a dozen cars, one row light and one row dark. I suspect that the dark cars are limousines for the well-to-do and the light cars are taxis waiting for the rest. Can anyone confirm or deny my guess? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

More likely they are all private cars belonging to the various politicians and dignitaries in attendance. Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; this is a 1930s taxi - a bit smaller than the cars in the clip I think. Alansplodge (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Empress of the ottoman empire?

In her article, Roxelana is called "Her Imperial Majesty the Empress of the Ottoman Emire". Is this truly correct? Did the wives of the ottoman sultans have the ecquivalent title of an empress? This title is not referenced in the article, and if she did not have the title of empress, nor an equivalent title, would it be correct to remove the unreferenced title from the article? I am posting this question here to make sure. I have found no information that there was any sort of "empress" title or empress position at the ottoman court except for the position of valide sultan, which was given to the sultans mother, not to any of his wives. The sultan had several wives or concubines, and none of them seem to have had an official title or position to that of an empress. --Aciram (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Normally, the Ottoman Sultans did not have "wives" in the western sense. There was an official part of the royal court known as the Imperial Harem, which was headed by the Sultan's biological mother known as the "Valide Sultan". The Harem was composed of all of the females of the royal court, including the Sultan's concubines. There appears to have been a heirarchy within the Harem, and the highest ranked concubines were given the distinction of being "Kadın", a term usually translated as "wife". However, Roxalena presents an interesting case, she was given the title of "Haseki Sultan", a title which was not part of the normal Harem system, and which appears to be a sui generis creation just for her; given that this was a unique creation, it perhaps could be translated as "Empress", she would be the only one, which is why it would be hard to find other examples. As an aside, it appears that we have two articles which need merging. There is an article about her under both of her names, Hürrem and Roxelana and we need to remedy that ASAP. --Jayron32 15:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, I fixed the problem, which was an attempted copy-paste move a few days ago. --Jayron32 15:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

More: The Roxelana article clearly states "in an astonishing break with tradition, eventually was freed and became his legal wife, making Suleyman the first Ottoman Emperor to have a wed wife since Orhan Gazi." In other words, she was an Empress because she was the legal wife of an Emperor, a rare occurance among Ottoman Sultans in that the Sultan did not normally marry in the traditionally understood sense. --Jayron32 19:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Archaic Globalization

How is it best to introduce archaic globalization? If too much information is added it becomes repetitive and the reader will not want to continue on further. Is short but sweet the way to approach this? Also, is it wise to reference archaic globalization as a reason modern day globalization has emerged this way? I look forward to your response and thank you for your time.

Bfowler513 (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

I assume you're asking for help in improving the "Archaic globalization" article here on Wikipedia? Gabbe (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The nature of keys in fire department lockboxes

In recent days, there has been a buzz of news surrounding proposed changes to the fire code in Cedar Falls, IA. Specifically, people are questioning the legality of the fire department lockboxes on the outside of commercial and multi-unit apartment buildings, which contain keys for entry for use by the fire department. (A news story covering this controversy is here. [13]. )

Now, the city I live in has had these boxes as long as I have known, and I haven't thought much about them. But some of the coverage I have been reading about the Cedar Falls case implies that these boxes include keys to the individual units, as well as a key to the building. I had always thought that the boxes in my town only contained exterior door keys.

I cannot find, in any of the news coverage or anywhere else, a clear and unambiguous statement of what keys are kept in these boxes, either in Cedar Falls or in the other places that this system is used. My question should by now be obvious, but I will state it directly. Does the Cedar Falls rule require door keys for individual apartment units to be in the box, or just a key to the exterior door? Does this differ from the system as implemented in other parts of the US? gnfnrf (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Just as a side point, this may be a real-world example of WP:BEANS or more to the point, Security through obscurity, i.e. it isn't in the interest of the civic authorities to publish the full details of the "fire department lock box key system." By publishing or publicizing the information you are asking about, the city is, in essence, telling potential crooks the exact way to break into the system. The information you seek may literally not be publicly available since making it so available presents a significant security risk for those communities that use these sorts of lock-boxes. --Jayron32 19:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The locks on multiunit apartments are usually fitted for master keys, so that the superintendent can let plumbers and the like in if need be. Since the firefighters have access to the lock box so that they can, well, fight fires, it would make sense for the lock box to contain a master key. Of course, the firefighters have axes, too. PhGustaf (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This varies a lot by where you are. I dunno about Cedar Falls in particular. I can say that in one apartment I lived in, only the front door key was contained in the fire lockbox. When I moved to a smaller community not 20 minutes away, the lockbox had keys for every apartment. In the US, the USPS has "arrow keys" that are similar in purpose - they access a lockbox with a front door key so the mailman can deliver mail to interior mailboxes. ^Avic_ennasis @ 00:13, 14 Sivan 5771 / 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A few updates. First, I have established (by asking my landlord) that the lockboxes in my city of residence (St. Paul, MN) contain only the exterior keys, and miscellaneous keys like those to the boiler room and storage rooms. They do not contain residence keys. Second, my further research into the Cedar Falls situation has determined that the Cedar Falls fire code is modeled after the 2009 International Fire Code. So, it seems my question could be answered by reading the 2009 International Fire Code... which cost $75 online and is not in my local library. As for Jayron32's point, I cannot agree. In certain cases, such information may be obscured. In this case, however, every building owner in the jurisdiction must know the rules, so they must be public (if not publicized). gnfnrf (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

My local library, however, does have a copy. :-) Chapter 5, section 504.1: Required access. Exterior doors and openings required by this code or the International Building Code shall be maintained by readily accessible for emergency access by the fire department. International Code Council (2009), 2009 International Fire Code, p. 50 So, as far as I can tell, it only requires keys for external doors. (Section 506 covers the lock boxes, but doesn't specify what keys they have to contain.) ^Avic 23:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding restructuring of Greek debt

Am I missing something, or have Jean-Claude Trichet, speaking for the European Central Bank, and many European officials (as cited in this article) adopted a position that is at best irrational but in any case contrary to the interests of European taxpayers? These officials oppose any restructuring (i.e., write-off) of Greek debt, even though most economists (who have addressed the issue) agree that a Greek default is inevitable. (See for example, these sources: [14] [15] [16].) Instead of restructuring Greek debt and setting up a sustainable repayment plan now, these officials insist on lending Greece more money, increasing Greece's debt, and increasing the amount of taxpayer money that will have been spent merely to delay the inevitable default. I cannot find an argument in the media for why such a delay is in the interest of anyone but these officials themselves, who may thereby avoid having to deal with the inevitable default while they're in office. Can anyone find an argument justifying this delay in terms of the public interest? Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Resturcturing isn't that simple. Most sovereign debt isn't in the form of loans from banks, it is in the form of Government bonds. Restructuring a national debt isn't like renegotiating the terms of your mortgage so the bank doesn't have to foreclose. In the case of the mortgage, there's one lender, the bank, who gets repaid by you in the form of an annuity, i.e. a series of smaller payments. When you refinance/restructure/renegotiate your debt, you and the bank reach an agreement to renegotiate the terms of your repayment, i.e. by lengthening the term or lowering the accruing interest, something like that. With sovereign debt like Greece, instead of one lender you have millions of lenders, and they bonds aren't payed back on an annuity plan, they are paid in full with interest on the date of maturity. There isn't a way to restructure this debt plan, Greece has an obligation to pay the bond's principle + interest on the date of maturity, and if they don't pay this off they default. Restructuring Greece's debt would mean that the bondholders would be forced, against their will, to accept that they are not going to be paid according to the terms of their bond, they will either get payed less money than promised, or get paid later than the date of maturity. When creditors are forced to accept less-than-face-value for their loans that they made to a debtor, that is the textbook definition of bankruptcy. Calling it "debt restructuring" doesn't make it a different thing. So, either Greece repays its bonds on time, or it doesn't. It isn't in the interest of the rest of the Eurozone to see Greece default, for several complicated reasons. First, there's the moral hazard that allowing Greece to do so would encourage governments to demand similar treatment (Ireland, Portugal, etc.). Second, most countries can pay off their bonds by simply printing more cash (Debasement); this pisses of creditors because it causes inflation to lower the value of their bonds, but there's not much that can be done. Greece can't do this because it has no currency of its own. So, it can't default, and it can't print more cash. Greece is basically stuffed, so the only option left is for the Eurozone to keep Greece afloat with more loans, at least until such time as Greece can get its own house in order. --Jayron32 19:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm truly sorry, but I have my honest doubts about your analysis (I might be honestly mistaken - I'm only human after all). A bank isn't forced to refinance/restructure/renegotiate your debt if it doesn't want to.

It can go to a proper court, which will take over the case. If the debtor is simply unable to pay its debt, the court makes a ruling, and in the bitter end the debtor is declared bankrupt. The debtor's real property is sold, and the lenders (the bank) are repaid as best as possible. This also applies to the debts of private companies. All its assets are sold and the lenders are repaid as best as possible. Banks usually avoid taking these steps because it takes a considerable amount of time (the wheels of justice turn slowly) and because they don't truly want your house but rather your/their money (their business is lending money and collect interest).

However we are not dealing with the debt of a private individual or private companies but with sovereign debt of a national government. I'm simply unsure if the same rules apply. I mean which court has the jurisdiction and the power to order and truly force the government of Greece to sell of some of its assets (like its 111.7 tons of gold, public property, god knows what else)?

"When creditors are forced to accept less-than-face-value for their loans that they made to a debtor, that is the textbook definition of bankruptcy" is IMHO simply wrong. Debt restructuring simply is not Bankruptcy. It's more like an agreement between the lenders and the government in question. The lender doesn't want a bankrupt government (which would be unable to pay at all) and the government is unable to pay on time. Therefore the two usually reach a compromise: the first waits for a couple of years longer and second pays a little more. The government can even pay less. This seems to have happened before: Argentine debt restructuring. Flamarande (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Governments are simply a bit above normal rules. They are usually considered too big to fail.

You kinda make my point for me. Greece isn't in debt to banks, it is in debt to bond holders, so the situation isn't the same situation. It doesn't owe money on collateralized debt (like mortgages) and it doesn't own money on credit cards, and it doesn't owe money to banks on business loans or on payroll loans, or to a guy named Vinnie who will break your kneecaps if you don't pay. Greece has bond obligations which it has to either pay or skip out on. If it skips out on them, its credit rating tanks, and then it can no longer issue bonds at a reasonable interest rate, meaning it cannot do business. There is no bank, or set of banks, for Greece to negotiate its bond obligations down to. It can ask for relief in the form of loans from other central banks to pay off its bonds (essentially, this is exactly the sort of debt restructuring private individuals do when they, say, roll their credit card debt into a home equity loan, or something like that) which is exactly what it is doing now. Basically, the Eurozone is loaning Greece money (in the form of bank loans) to pay off its bond obligations. It is refinancing its debt... Regarding the Argentine situation, it is very similar to what is going on now: Basically the IMF acted as a "white knight" creditor and issued loans to Argentina to allow them to pay off their debt obligations (albeit, at reduced terms). What Greece (and the Eurozone) is currently trying to avoid right now is the "at reduced terms" situation. --Jayron32 23:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Your mention of "some guy named vinnie" (which is a lovely colorful euphemism by the way) is particularly apt. That's always the bull elephant in the room when it comes to international policy of all kinds, Bank of America doesn't have ballistic missiles but nation-lenders do. No one is honestly suggesting Greece's creditors use military force to get satisfaction of their debts, but some right-wing pundits have called the US national debt a moral imperative because it is a potential national security issue. HominidMachinae (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This is I understand this whole situation: the EU is lending a great deal of money to the Greek government so that it can pay its government bonds. Then it sends financial specialists to advise/warn the Greek government how to seriously spend/waste less money, collect more taxes and to kick-start its economy by slashing certain policies (like subsidies, early retirement age, etc) which are popular in certain circles of the population but de facto hurting the Greek economy as a whole. After a couple of years the Greek government will hopefully repay most of its debt to the EU at a relativly low interrest (way lower than it would get from the market).

The EU is obviously NOT helping because of compassion but mainly because of sheer self-interrest. IF Greece becomes unable to pay its governments bonds it will unavoidably hurt the other EU countries. First, the market would increase the pressure on other stumbling countries (read: Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, etc). Second, several important American and European banks (French, German, British, etc) have bought a huge amount of Greek government bonds. IF the Greek goverment suddenly becomes unable to pay them the banks would lose an enormous amount of money. Then the increasing pressure would be upon the banks. However IF more than a couple of banks lose the confidence of their investors and of the general public they could collapse (bank runs, etc). THAT could and probably would devastate the economies of the other countries to the brink of major economic turmoil, including those which seem to be recovering (Germany, France, etc).

The REAL PROBLEM is that the Greek economy as a whole is rather dependent upon a spending/wasting government (by the way that's also a serious problem in Portugal, Spain, Italy, USA, god knows how many more). Too many Greek companies are/were focused upon their main client: the Greek government.

The sudden U-turn of the Greek government ("we are unable to spend/waste the huge amount of money as we always did because if we do it the UE will not lend us its money") will obviously reduce the demand of certain goods and services. Too many Greek companies whose main client was the Greek state are forced to cut down on their own costs (read: fire employees). That in turn will obviously lead to an increase of unemployment subsidies. It will get even worse: the frightened Greek people spend increasingly less. That in turn will reduce the amount collected by certain taxes like VAT.

The real goal is that the private Greek companies turn to private clients and foreign markets to sell their products and goods. IF that goes well they can hopefully (re)hire ppl reducing unemployment. The whole process would/will turn the whole Greek economy less dependent upon the Greek government crazy spending.

It's going to hurt a lot more before it gets better, but so be it: the previous situation led to the whole mess and we simply can't go back to governments spending like crazy and wasting too much money as previously. It simply doesn't work: the government simply spends too much money suppossedly "to help the national economy" only to raise its taxes to pay for its spending (it's basicly a big vicious circle). The PIIGS governments have been been running huge deficits for several decades already and were raising taxes even before the whole crisis started. And AFAIK the Greek government paid several millions to certain banks in order to hide their true numbers to better decieve the UE supervision! It was bound to collapse sooner or latter. Flamarande (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC) PS: I'm not 100% certain if all of the above is correct. I might be certainly mistaken, but this how I understand the whole mess.

While it's difficult to imagine Vinnie coming around and breaking a country's kneecaps (figuratively) nowadays, it was quite common until the early 20th century for Western countries to intervene militarily in third-world countries that were unable to meet their debt obligations. This is how Egypt became a British protectorate in the 19th century, for example. Nowadays, it would probably take the form of imposing a strict comptrollership on a country's spending to ensure it meets its obligations to creditors. The IMF already does it in a way, imposing strict conditions in return for issuing emergency loans, but it could go even further, with foreigners actually taking over a country's finance/budget ministry to ensure they are repaid...--Xuxl (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Foreigners actually taking over a country's finance/budget ministry to ensure they are repaid. You would only need an army to pull that of. Flamarande (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

All of this ignores the point made by most economists who have commented on this that it is virtually impossible for Greece to repay its debt. The degree of austerity that would be required to bring its budget into surplus is such that it would cause the economy to contract quite severely and would force the inhabitants of Greece to adopt a developing-country living standard inconsistent with the survival of any Greek government. Meanwhile, even with a surplus on a (greatly reduced budget), Greece would have difficulty even making interest payments on its debt, now much larger as a percentage of its GDP. Expecting this debt to be repaid is not rational, according to most economists. Either creditors will agree to a restructuring at some point in the future, or a future Greek government will sell austerity measures to their voters by 1) declaring a moratorium on interest payments to limit the level of austerity, and/or 2) withdrawing from the euro in order to devalue. Of course, this would make it impossible for the Greeks to borrow for a few years, but they wouldn't be able to anyway, and at least they would not have to pay interest any more. Certainly, Greeks exercised poor judgment in the past. However, frankly, so did the German, French, and other banks and other financial entities that lent to Greece without doing their homework. Ethically, a case can be made that the lender is as much to blame for making a foolish loan as the borrower is for taking it. But this is all beside the point. Greece is not going to be able to repay its debt. Why, then, do European officials insist on increasing the amount that will have to be written off at taxpayer expense? Marco polo (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The ratings of Greece began were reasonable when the banks bought the government bonds before the whole crisis started. The banks homework was largely based upon forged data provided by the Greek government (who even paid certain American banks to better hide the true figures - that wasn't poor judgement. That was trickery, deceit and fraud on a massive scale by the Greek government). IMHO there just a big problem with a any withdrawal of the Euro. IMHO this would happen: A country (Greece, Portugal, Ireland, whatever) plans to withdraw from the Euro in order to devalue its (future) currency. Everybody runs to their bank asap to withdraw all their savings before that happens (exchanging their savings into a solid currency in order to avoid the devalue of their savings). The banks are unable to return the money of all their clients and collapse (a kind of a bank run). The local economy is screwed and the new currency is worthless. That's why no country will leave the Euro in the foreseeable future. Let's be honest: the EU is expecting that the Greek government will be unable to pay. That's why they realizing meetings of the finance ministers: to plan a reasonable debt restructuring. They are only gaining time in order to sell this to the masses. Flamarande (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Free living wage distribution

Is it possible to introduce a free, country-leveled living wage distribution (except for those who receive pension) via automated currency-producing process (to reduce salary-related expenditures). Each person except pensioners and infants (say, between ages 10 and 59) is supposed to receive a fixed monthly living wage in cash and the distribution is supposed to be conducted through a well-evaluated number of pay offices. One of the expected benefits, aside from prosperity, could be high purchase power--178.180.3.214 (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

How would you suggest paying for it? Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The currency-producing process is supposed to be free of charge and mostly or entirely automated. --178.182.39.40 (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the currency-producing process devalues the currency by the exact amount of the produced currency. Look at it simply: Lets say that the entirety of the U.S. Economy was represented by ten $1 bills. If you own one of these bills, you own a value equal to one tenth of the U.S. economy. Now, lets say that the U.S. government prints and distributes ten more $1 bills to random people. Suddenly, you're $1 is worth half as much as it used to be, overnight, without you doing anything. It is now only worth 1/20 of the economy. The economy doesn't have any more value in it; all that has changed is the share of the economy that your dollar represents. The same principle applies regardless of how many bills there are in circulation, or indeed that we even use currency at all, or deal in purely "virtual" money in computer ledgers: increasing the money supply without increasing the value of the goods and services that back that money supply doesn't improve the situation for the economy in any measurable way. --Jayron32 20:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I know that roughly speaking some people should have less money than others in order to keep currency valuable, but this is it: would the inflation rate in my suggestion be that horrible or not? --178.182.22.5 (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the inflation would indeed be "that horrible" (actually, it would be worse). Blueboar (talk) 22:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

My very rough calculations imply that "topping up" all workers' wages to at least a "living wage" of $15 an hour would cost something like $750 billion a year. That sounds like a lot, but we already spend about $500 billion a year on "safety net" programs. The U.S. could, theoretically, replace all of its anti-poverty programs (refundable EITC, TANF, food stamps, home heating assistance, etc.) with a guaranteed minimum income and still spend less as a percentage of GDP fighting poverty than other developed countries. I don't know if that would be a good idea, just pointing out its plausibility. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Your suggestion of producing a social wage by expansion of money supply is unusual. By regulating prices, capital reinvestment (growth) and profit you could do this without a consumer price inflationary element. This will crash the national rate of profit, and your country's credit rating, and have significant civil society impacts. In many ways a social wage is the implicit outcome of a fully developed welfare state: the wage structure is flattened by empowered bargaining for the weakest, progressive taxation, and benefits for those unable to work due to injury or a lack of jobs. In many ways these initiatives had significant civil society impacts. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

@the OP: What you are doing here is confusing money with value. Ask the people who held on to one hundred trillion Zimbabwean Dollar notes if they felt particularly financially stable. Money, in a healthy financial system is tied to value: I can expect my dollar to buy me a bag of potato chips today, but the dollar is only worth what my confidence is in its ability to buy that bag of potato chips. If today it buys a bag of potato chips, and tomorrow it buys a stick of gum, and on Friday I wipe my ass with it, because that is all it is good for. In order to have value, money need stability. If the government is printing buckets of money for no good reason, then where is the stability? Even in stable economies, printing money causes inflation. So, lets say that poor people in your economy can only afford, with their current cash, to buy enough food for lunch, but not dinner. So you give them all enough cash to buy dinner, for free. What happens? Well, what you find is tomorrow lunch now costs twice as much as it did yesterday. What did that extra cash do for those poor people? They have more toilet paper now, I suppose... --Jayron32 23:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

@Mwalcoff: What part of your calculation did you take into account the number of people who quit working entirely just to live off the government dole? Most people don't work because they love it. They work because they need the money to pay to live. If my options are a) $10.00 bagging groceries or b) $15.00 an hour doing nothing, which job am I going to take? People making $10.00 per hour provide much of the goods and services that provide value for the economy. If people aren't working, they aren't producing value. The net size of the economy shrinks, and with it the value of the dollar those people are getting from you. What also shrinks is your tax income, since the economy is smaller, you take in less tax revenues. There are intelligent ways to use social welfare to raise the ability of people to contribute to the economy in positive ways, but giving them a check every week to do nothing isn't it. Social welfare is a vital, important, and mandatory part of a healthy democracy, and very much needed. But it needn't be in the form of no-strings-attached checks which pay everyone enough so they don't have to bother working... --Jayron32 00:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You could look at the political economic bargaining in the Australian economy between 1941 and 1983 over the appropriate wage level as a proportion of social production. While wages amongst different skill levels of workers flattened (see arguments from university degreed workers over "relativities flattening") the chief mechanism used to discipline an expanded working class share of national product wasn't unemployment during this period, but inflation in a consumer economy rather removed from our current understanding of what a consumer economy is. (In the 1980s, unemployment became the chief "externality" to discipline the entire Australian working class, though with a brief period of the use of interest rates). This is to say, that during the 1970s when a social wage effectively existed in Australia, voluntary labour market exit to solely social wage subsistence was miniscule, and not a significant economic impact. Refusal to reinvest profits, or arrange for easily accessible credit, on the part of capitalists was a more significant hinderance to growth in this period. (Broadly Jayron32, you're analysing society as if only the working class and the state are political economic agents, you need to incorporate capital as an agent; in the 1970s, as demonstrated in Chile and New Zealand, or the 1960s, as demonstrated by Australian peak level wage bargaining, capital was very much a self-conscious system wide agent). Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, quite certainly capital is an economic force, consider the situation in the U.S. right now. The experts keep telling us the recession is over, because most of the standard indicators of the economy indicate it is humming right along. Most, except one, that being unemployment. Basically, the U.S. economy has figured out how to make money without employees. So the working class in the U.S. right now is having a very shitty time, and yet other economic players (especially corporations) are doing just fine. Coupled with a dead housing market, we have the strange disconnect that nearly every indicator of our general economy says that the basic economic system, as measured in terms of things like GDP and gross macroeconomic measures, the national economy is humming right along. Except that people are out of work, and can't buy or sell their house. So, who is the economy supposed to be "working" for. While it is true that, as you implyu Fifelfoo, you can massage the numbers to show that an economic situation is fine, by ignoring the "working class...as an economic agent". That's pretty much bullshit, however, since said working class is the bulk of the people. Saying that an economic system can safely ignore them is meaningless. Its like saying "In the middle ages, everyone was rich...excepting the peasents and serfs". The real experience of real people is what it is all about, and it seems rather pointless to claim that the personal financial experience of the bulk of your population is somehow not the central issue in any economic policy. --Jayron32 01:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely up to "So, who is the economy supposed to be "working" for." Since the 1830s in the United States and the 1910s in the United Kingdom, the bulk of the electorate have been workers—yet in both countries government and market activity has been broadly counterposed to the interests of workers, usually in a very immediate sense. (A ready example is the use of anti-trust law in the United States in the early part of the 20th Century, in conditions where the union's primary threat was production enhancing wage-skill mixes favourable to Taylorism and improved OH&S). The strange lacunae of class warfare of 1940–1980 in the United Kingdom, United States, Australia; a period of social welfare for whites, high employment, and steadily increasing volumes and qualities of products consumed by workers is the problem period. Not the current situation of a market and state being run in interests opposed to the vast majority of the population. Additionally, capital as an agent may be pushed into non-optimum total distributions of income (ie: vast income inequality within the working class, changing the consumption mix away from an optimum balance for cycling the economy faster) where capital requires internal hierarchical differentiation to maintain control over factory situations (paying the foreman and staff more). Reading highly summative political economic debates over the appropriate level of remuneration, in an arbitration situation where the court demanded expert witnesses, the interests of private profit as an absolute were often put and often triumphed over conceptions of the economy as a whole. Profits and inflation have regularly trumped wages, even when the conservative pro-private enterprise state agent has supported expanding wage incomes, even when the market is crying out for more effective consumer demand. I don't defend it, when I am not an editor I oppose it; but wasn't Reagan's argument that in the 1980s everybody was rich except for…? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Jayron: I'm assuming this is a "top up" for workers making less than $15 an hour, not a welfare entitlement payment for people who may not be working at all. I'm not endorsing the plan, only doing a thought exercise as to its fiscal plausibility. Of course, on top of the $750b you'd have to have unemployment benefits for people out of a job, plus Social Security for people of working age who can't work, etc. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Even "topping up" presents problems: what impetus does it provide for people to get better jobs? More people working in more productive jobs produces more for the economy, paying people to remain in their current station doesn't raise their standard of living in any meaningful way. Instead of writing checks to people just to keep their current low-end job, why not write the same check to a local trade school/community college so they can train up these people for more skilled work? Why not write the check to people who provide child care, so women can afford to hold down better jobs with longer hours and provide more for their children in terms of saving for college? Why not write the check to health care providers so that local companies don't have to spend as much providing health care for their workers and can hire more local workers instead of farming out the work to other nations where worker costs are cheaper? There are a dozen ways to spend the same money where the money acts to raise the standard of living of the worker more than just directly giving the worker the money, and which also have the benefit of providing additional stimulus to the local economy? --Jayron32 14:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Not surprisingly we've focused on your creation of expenditure out of increasing the money supply, rather than the policy component. You could do well to rephrase as a pure policy supplied out of recurrent funds. Additionally, given the central role of the United States in world capitalism, you may wish to rephrase your suggestion for a smaller, more constrained capitalist economy. New Zealand has often been used as an experimental economy (with consequent highly disruptive social impacts on the lives of New Zealanders). With an expense from constrained consolidated revenue what would be the impacts of raising the wages of workers to $X using directly government supplied income supplements. You could also consider this via employer administered wage supplements funded likewise, or through taxation relief or negative taxation for such workers also funded likewise. Unlike printing money, expense from constrained consolidated revenue would decrease government spending in other areas (I'm guessing not defence or welfare for capitalists, so from another kind of welfare for workers): this would either wage flatten workers, or result in the unemployed being even worse off. Doing so from an unconstrained general revenue (ie: tax increases), would result in wage flattening via tax (taxes affect profits and corporate reinvestment much less than they do wages). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Greece's rating

How can Greece have such a low rating? Even lower than countries at the brink of a civil war/Islamic revolution/expropriation/whatever... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.12.164 (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Civil wars and revolutions don't necessarily result in defaulting on debt. Usually, whoever ends up in charge afterwards carries on paying the debts of the old regime (if they don't, the rest of the world tends to be very unhappy about it). Also, the debt of the kind of countries you mention is often what we call "third world debt" which is usually lent by other governments (or the IMF), rather than companies and individuals, and isn't really expected to be paid back. And, of course, oil-rich countries tend not to have any national debt at all (and have sovereign wealth funds instead), so if any of the countries you had in mind fall into that category, there is no need to worry about them defaulting. --Tango (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Another factor is that no one is lending large amounts of money to those nations. Foreign money funneled into them either tends to be no-strings-attached foreign military aid, other aid, ect. Honestly Greece is in worse shape because no one expected it to fall apart, they thought it was a safe enough investment it was worth loaning them money. HominidMachinae (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The other problem with Greece is that its society seems to be in denial about the extent of its debt, and its politicians are refusing to do anything about it. Nobody will help those who won't help themselves. (As I understand it, anyway. I'm not an economist.)--TammyMoet (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that the people or the politicians are in denial, its more that segments of the population are in denial about the level of problems their own personal interest creates. Its a universal political problem. I am reminded of the "What have the Roman's ever done for us!" bit from the "Life of Brian" film, but in reverse. Lets say your country overspends its income by 20%. So the logical, equitable way to fix the problem is to cut the budget by 20% equally in all areas; every department gets 20% less, every program and system gets 20% less cash. Spread the pain around equally. But then someone says "What about the military? We can't cut 20% from the military budget or else we'll just get invaded from our enemies who will rape our women and children" So the Military can't be cut. Then someone else says "What about education? If we cut education, our kids grow up stupid and we'll lag more behind the rest of the world." So education is sacrosacnt. Then some one says "What about the pensioners? Do you want to throw Grandma out on the street and watch her starve?" "What about infrastructure? If we can't move goods around the country on quality roads our economy can't survive" "What about..." It goes on forever. Everyone is fine with slashing the budgets of those interests that aren't theres. People without kids don't care much about the schools, the young aren't interested in paying the pensions of the old, etc. etc. As long as their narrow little pet interest isn't touched, they fully support cutting the budget of everything else. And thus, everyone has a reason to be pissed when "austerity" measures are passed; not because they disagree with austerity in the big picture, just because they want it to apply to everyone else but them. --Jayron32 12:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You could/should replace 'country' with 'government/state'. It was mostly the government/state which was spending too much money (Olympic Game, anyone?). Notice that private individuals and companies which spend too much will face a court which will solve the issue. The current mess is Sovereign debt of governments/states. Flamarande (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's not forget that there are two ways to solve budget problems: cutting spending and raising taxes. For some reason today (it couldn't possibly be that the media and the politicians are owned by rich people), raising taxes on the rich people whose post-tax incomes have risen dramatically over the last 20 years is not an option seriously considered by most Western politicians. However, tax evasion is apparently rampant in Greece, particularly among the affluent. The obvious way to resolve their budget issue would be to increase taxes on the affluent and then enforce those taxes. Conservatives will say that this will limit economic growth, but in fact, redistributing income downward in the economic pyramid greatly increases the chances that that income will be spent rather than saved, which leads to a virtuous circle of economic growth and higher tax receipts. Increased taxation of the affluent has a much smaller negative impact on economic growth than cutting benefits to those who spend what they get. And to have any hope of repaying much of its debt, Greece needs economic growth, or at least an end to economic contraction. Marco polo (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Me: in the choir... You: Preaching to it... --Jayron32 15:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to somewhat disagree with that one (if the problem was truly that easy to solve... I would raise them immediately). AFAIK simply raising taxes over the rich simply doesn't work: the rich will simply flee to fiscal paradises (where do you think Athina Onassis lives? AFAIK she doesn't live in Greece at all. I think she lives in Switzerland - or Brazil - were the personal taxes are lower). It's perfectly legal and I honestly would do the same. I mean, why should I pay more taxes, so that the government wastes even more? That's doesn't solve the basic problem at all: the state/government was increasingly spending more and more money, even more that it was collecting in taxes (and printing). What governments could do (besides spending/wasting less money) is close all legal and fiscal loopholes regarding taxes. Don't create more and more laws (which well-paid lawyers will avoid), improve and truly enforce the ones you already have.

AFAIK most proposals of the specialists sent by the UE and/or FMI are simply the right ones and should be implemented asap. However they will hurt a tiny minority of the ppl who then gets all fired up in order to protect their own selfish interest. And they will paint this as a fight over ppl's rights. Let me just pick a blatant example of this sheer insanity: Greek truck driving licenses [17]. A professional truck driver needs a trucking license, right? In Greece the numbers of said licenses was limited to 33'000 since 1970! Someone who wanted to become a trucker had to either inherit it from a family member (usually his father) or buy a license in the black market from a retiring trucker. An average person couldn't get a new one by any other means. Meanwhile the Greek economy evolved and expanded since 1970: there was an increasing demand for transported goods which was limited to a constant number of truckers. The trucker companies (as a whole) obviously increased their prices. That in turn increased the prices of the transported goods. Furthermore the whole Greek trucking industry was uninterested in improving their service in comparison of other countries (it became uncompetitive). I mean, if I had a guaranteed market for my services why would I improve at all? What I would do is raise my prices instead. The Greek government simply refused to deal with the growing problem (since 1970!). In the bitter end it was the UE and the FMI which had to force the Greek government to solve this problem. The furious truckers went to the streets in protest and shouted: "Liberty or Death!". I can only read about the whole issue (admittedly from the safety of my home and with the security of having a job) and ask myself: Are all these guys completely insane? Were the succeeding Greek governments solely composed by cowards? Flamarande (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC) I know that this particular problem didn't screw the Greek economy on its own. However this just an example how things happened on the ground. AFAIK the same problem (a fixed amount of truck licenses in the hand of a tiny minority) exists in other countries (one of them Portugal, which is also in dire straits - Is this truly a coincidence?)

Well that may be as far as you know, but you don't know much. The proposals are not about truck driver licenses, but about decreasing salaries, pensions, benefits and health care, firing people, selling public property and in general making the general public pay for transgressions that they never even knew about. That's why the country is protesting, and that's why the protesters are anything but "a tiny minority". You have been fed too much right-wing propaganda, and believe it too easily.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

+1. I'm so sick and tired of people all around me parotting back the neofeudalist propaganda chorus that "raising taxes on the rich will hurt us all". E.g. in most countries, dividend taxes are ludicrously low. --213.196.218.59 (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to your own opinion in all matters. However I'm also sick and tired of people all around me parroting back the left-wing propaganda chorus that: "Let's raise the taxes of the rich. That will pay for everything.". Simply and only raising the taxes upon the rich is not going to work because the rich will simply flee. We're living a mobile world where the rich live abroad in fiscal paradises (like Switzerland, Monaco, etc) and pay incredible good lawyers to find any loopholes in new laws. Too high taxes will only strengthen their efforts and flight. Raising dividend taxes might work (to be honest I don't know that much about that subject - I know that were I live banks have incredible profits and that they pay low taxes and yes, I would raise them to a reasonable degree). IMHO a government shouldn't spend more money that it collects in taxes and prints in the mint. A government who asks for loans (without good reasons like major disaster, war, basic infrastructure) is making a debt and it's the taxpayer who always pays in the end. And the average taxpayer is unable to flee. Flamarande (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Companies need the nations that tax them, and are hence forced to abide by their laws; and their mobility is dependent on (the absence of) national and international legislation. Just giving up, raising one's hands and admitting that everything will have to be the way the rich want it means abandoning the entire process of democratization that has been going on since the beginning of modernity (what the IP referred to as neo-feudalization, I think).--91.148.159.4 (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dividends have already been taxed. Companies pay dividends based on their profits and corporate taxes reduce the profits, thus reduce the dividend paid out. To tax the dividend again would be analogus to having the government withhold taxes from your paycheck, and then make you pay taxes again when you cash your paycheck. Googlemeister (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What are disinformation-interested rightwingers doing on a project devoted to reality-based knowledge? As you probably know, reality has a well-known [left-wing] bias. Everything else is just propaganda by neofeudalist claqueurs. Go try to convince someone gullible someplace else. --213.196.218.59 (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, a true neofeudal society would be extremely left wing. It would do away with money and capital all together... everyone would owe service in return for service (a barter economy). Blueboar (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That's only if you define "left-wing" as "money-less" instead of "egalitarian" and "right-wing" as "money-based" instead of "anti-egalitarian / pro-hierarchic". The latter line of distinction is certainly older, and be aware that it is the one that we left-wingers generally have in mind. In particular, the left-wing view is that by serving the interests of the rich, increasing their power and affluence at the expense of the public and making everybody more dependent on and subservient to them, contrary to the principles of democracy, right-wingers are in effect making them our masters similar to the feudals of old.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Much of this has already been said (I think) but perhaps worth remembering there are signs Greece is going the way of some of the Arab countries. (It's probably not but it's not like everyone is content in their homes and going about peaceful and orderly lives with no protests.) Also while some of the protesters in the Arab countries have suggested ignoring debt since a chunk of it went to corrupt officials and politicians, this was generally minor. This comes to the situation in Greece where ignoring the debt appears to be a significant part of the protests. Nil Einne (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

mythology questions

1. Did Hades have a scepter/Bident and keys in mythology? If so, what are they for? 2. What is the story and symbolism behind Ares/Mars shield and spear? 3. What is the story behind Hermes' lyre? Neptunekh2 (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I bet you could find the answers to all those questions in the very articles you linked to. I did. Have you tried reading them? Matt Deres (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

June 15

The "Doom Book"

I'm not sure how I stumbled across it, but I was checking out our article at Doom Book and was thinking of expanding it, perhaps including the list of names it supposedly contained. After some admittedly quick Googling, I am starting to worry that the article is a hoax - every return I see looks uncomfortably like a mirror or near mirror of our article or else is about something else entirely. I don't doubt that our editors acted in good faith (that's not AGF or anything, you can preview Russo's book at Amazon and he does indeed mention it once in passing), but I'm starting to wonder how real this Doom Book actually was. Did it actually exist or is it a kind of metaphor for what was undoubtedly going on in Hollywood at the time? Was it like McCarthy's supposed "list" (i.e. just a scare tactic)? Can anyone find a reference independent of the Russo book? Perhaps even the list itself? Apart from my concern about the article, I'd like to learn more about the list. Matt Deres (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If you search Google Books (not just Google Web) for "Doom Book" Will Hays you will get three pages of books that talk about it, many of which you can preview. Looie496 (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's something at least (I was searching under "doom book" list and just doom book and got nothing) in that it gives me a few references that predate the Russo book, but there doesn't seem to be anything substantive at all, just variations of "a list of 117 (or 130) names...". The name Wallace Reid shows up a lot, but he died in 1923 and the list was supposedly put together in the 1930s (at least according to our article). Considering that these were supposedly bound books delivered to studio heads there's very little out there. Matt Deres (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I found basically no hard references about a "Doom Book," but if you search for "Will Hays" and "blacklist" you find considerably more. It would be nice if there were better references. The names on the Hays organization blacklist don't seem to be publicly posted anywhere. Searching through LA Times and NY Times archives about Hays and the early MPPA turns up a lot of somewhat conflicting information, and no discussions of explicit blacklisting. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wives of Vasili IV of Russia

Does anyone have any information on the wives of Vasili IV of Russia. This site list Maria Pss Repnina and Maria Ekaterina Bugnosova-Rostovskaia as his wives. But who were they and were they Tsaritsa consorts of Russia? What is the Pss in the first woman's name.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't access that site, but I suggest Pss is short for Princess. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now accessed it, and I'd still say it means Princess. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If this source[18] is reliable, then you're right. Additional abbreviations (which I've seen elsewhere when googling this question) are Css = Countess, Dss = Duchess, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but now, who are these women and were they tsarina or tsaritsa?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Brockhaus and Efron disagrees with fmg.ac. The 17 Jan 1608 date applies to the second marriage, to Maria Petrovna (Buynosova-Rostovskaya). B&E calls her a tsaritsa. The name of the first wife is sometimes given as Elena (the Russian wikipedia says she died 1592, before Vasili's reign).--Cam (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Measuring a civilization by the lowliest members

Beloved Refdeskians, please help where my Google skills are lacking! I've seen this quote about judging a society by how the lowest members are treated attributed to Dostoevsky, Churchill, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, the Statue of Liberty, and pretty much everyone who's ever been quoted, except for Oscar Wilde. Is there an actual, factual source? Foofish (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dostoyevsky at least wrote "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." (In The House of the Dead.) And the ubiquitous "Gandhi" quote you are talking about seems not to be reliably traceable to Gandhi, neither the "weakest members" nor the "animals" version. That's about as much as I can tell you.--Rallette (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This question was debated at some length on Wikiquote's Reference Desk a few years ago. Jeffq contributed three quotations, taken from The Columbia World of Quotations and Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations, which show the thought evolving. Here they are:

• A decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization.
  • Samuel Johnson, 1770; quoted by the Rev. Dr. Maxwell in Life of Samuel Johnson by James Boswell (1791)
• If a test of civilization be sought, none can be so sure as the condition of that half of society over which the other half has power.
  • Harriet Martineau, Women, Vol. 3, Society in America (1837)
• Yet somehow our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is in the way that it cares for its helpless members.
  • Pearl Buck, My Several Worlds (1954), p. 337

--Antiquary (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You, Antiquary, are made of awesome. Thank you so much! Foofish (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A similar sentiment:

The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped. Hubert Humphrey, Remarks at the dedication of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building, November 1, 1977, Congressional Record, November 4, 1977, vol. 123, p. 37287. Neutrality^talk 09:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Utilitarianism revisited

Take this example. 20 people are stranded in an isolated island with no transport possible with the outside world for many days (due to any reason). The people are feeling hungry and some have started to fell ill. Then one of them opines that one among us must have to die, then we will practice cannibalism, and this will save most of us. Otherwise we all will die in hunger. Utilitarianism will argue since the killing of one individual in this particularly situation saves the lives of 19 people, so this act is ethically justified. So we can see utilitarianism has disregard for individuality and human rights. Then why do such an inhumane approach to ethics called utilitarianism is accepted so widely? --999Zot (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because you're killing a person who is doomed to death soon enough anyway? 75.40.137.154 (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The obvious solution to that moral dilemma is to just wait until somebody dies on their own, then eat them. This avoids the risk of the rescue party arriving right after they are killed. There's enough variation in people that someone is likely to die while others are still able to make arrangements for him (table arrangements, that is :-) ). StuRat (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes you just have to laugh about it... Mitch Ames (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A better what-if scenario might be that you don't have enough air to last until the rescue party is scheduled to arrive, so have to kill off people to save oxygen. StuRat (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In the example above, a utilitarian might argue that a single person decapitated in his sleep (or otherwise killed in some manner not involving pain or suffering) is less inhumane than 20 people starving to death in agony. But this depends, utilitarianism comes in many forms, and they don't all agree even in extreme cases like this. The classical argument against utilitarianism is that it could justify gang rape as long as the happiness of the perpetrators sufficiently outweighed the suffering of the victim. The utilitarian rebuttal to this is something along the lines of "true, but only in a very naïve definition of utilitarianism", and this leads to all sorts of different clarifications of what utilitarianism "really" means. If you're interested in this—you've been asking quite a few questions here lately—I can recommend the book Practical Ethics by Peter Singer. It contains many provocative arguments on various ethical issues from a rule utilitarian perspective, and I think it's a good introduction to that line of thinking. You're bound to disagree with much of it, but that only makes it all the more intriguing. Gabbe (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the need to kill someone sooner (rather than waiting for them to die), the "not enough air" scenario above has different "ethics" - the lack of cannibalism. If we're all starving we may commit two crimes - cannibalism and (possibly) murder, to survive. Whereas in the "not enough air" scenario, we commit only the one crime of murder. Some people may consider cannibalism (of someone who was already dead, ie you did not kill) more taboo and thus more morally reprehensible than murder. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, the case of the example actually happened in real life, see R v Dudley and Stephens.--85.55.200.141 (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A related case was Alexander Pearce. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at Bite the bullet. In trying to figure out what is morally right we have to weigh the relevant ethical principles against each other. Each principle all by itself is obvious and seemingly universal. They call them "prima facie absolute moral values," you know: "Peace," "Justice," "Respect for the choices of rational beings," "Do no harm," "Fidelity," "Love," "Sanctity of life," etcetera. However, they are only prima facie absolute. Life rarely hands us situations where only one moral value is relevant. We usually have to choose. So you ask "Then why do such an inhumane approach to ethics called utilitarianism is accepted so widely?" however it only looks that way in certain situations where we have to make that hard choice (Don't get me wrong, I'm no utilitarian. I don't consider "utility" to be one of those values, but some people do.).Greg Bard (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Typefaces with monospaced digits?

I am working on a print project that is full of numbers, and I need a typeface with monospaced digits.

Please do not tell me to just go with a font that is monospaced for all characters. It seems to me that those typefaces are not really designed for figures-only, as they give each digit too much width for my purpose.

What I mean is, I want "11" to be the same width as "10" or "12", so a column with numbers in sequence will not look funny. 75.40.137.154 (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried the usual, meaning most commonly used, fonts? I find that the majority of the fonts installed on this computer actually have monospaced digits, from Times to Garamond to Baskerville to Century. Though I suppose it may depend on what software you are using and all that.--Rallette (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Times doesn't. Try this test with the fonts:

   111111111111
   222222222222
   121212121212

Oh, and I forgot to say: I want a font with strokes that do not vary so much in width. This is for a calendar. I am trying to make something useful, not beautiful. 75.40.137.154 (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Then it could be just a question of settings. See for example this. In MS Word, which I used to test this, most fonts have monospaced digits by default (but then it is software for lawyers, basically). Whatever design software you are using, I suppose you should be able to specify monospaced digits, for any font that has that option.--Rallette (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I do a lot of graphics work, and I have several thousand fonts on my computer. For me, the most practical looking font for something like this would be Bell Gothic. I've also used Eurostile on calendars with much success. News Gothic, Gill Sans or Franklin Gothic are other options. — Michael J 08:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're on windows and don't mind the terminal look, fixedsys is a font that only has one official size, and all characters are the exact same width and height, and don't stray out of their box at all. i kan reed (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"the usual coffee maker business" -- Belle Epoque prostitution

I am reading E. Nesbit's The Incomplete Amorist. Two English men-about-town have settled in the artistic sub-culture Paris, with full access to its demi-monde. They are discussing an English young woman they know there, who has fallen into prostitution:

"She used to live with de Villermay," said Temple steadily; "he was the first--the usual coffee maker business, you know, though God knows how an English girl got into it. When he went home to be married--It was rather beastly. The father came up--offered her a present. She threw it at him. Then Schauermacher wanted her to live with him. No. She'd go to the devil her own way. And she's gone."

What the heck is "the usual coffee maker business"? Free espresso for whoever comes up with the most convincing explanation. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there is a well-worn idea relating to a wife making coffee for her husband in the morning, taken out of the context of domesticity, placed instead in the context of the prostitution business, the idea becomes referred to as "the usual coffee maker business." Just a guess. Bus stop (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This website of Victorian sexual slang has the following the entry on the word "Coffe house": "A necessary house.[toilet] To make a coffee-house of a woman's ****; to go in and out and spend nothing.". Though I have no idea if it is related to the above use of the word. (Probably not) --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like a conversation we are not meant to understand fully, but only to guess at. Other points are equally unclear, but suggestive: "The father came up--offered her a present. She threw it at him." Is this the father of "de Villermay"? Unlikely, though possible. Another father? And the next sentence: "Then Schauermacher wanted her to live with him. No. She'd go to the devil her own way. And she's gone." Who is "Schauermacher"? If we are only overhearing a conversation, we may not understand all the references overheard. Even "the usual coffee maker business" could be virtually meaningless. Bus stop (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Oh, I have no problem with the rest of the overheard conversation. "The father" is certainly that of de Villermay, come to Paris to tidy up his son's scrapes before the marriage to a nice girl back home. Schauermacher is just another young man about town -- notice the German name, emphasising the cosmopolitanism of their circle. It's the coffee maker that has me puzzled, and I see no reason why E. Nesbit wouldn't expect her audience to understand. The word "prostitute" never appears, for example, but the allusions are clear. -- I like the Mookychick reference to Victorian sexual slang, but "coffee house" is a place and "coffee maker" a machine. We are not quite there yet. Anyone got access to the OED? BrainyBabe (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"Coffee maker business" here seems to refer to living together unmarried. Bus stop (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"When he went home to be married--It was rather beastly. The father came up--offered her a present. She threw it at him." So she had lived with this bachelor de Villermay, who had then left her to marry a respectable woman. (I think it was de Villermay's father - de V. himself would not come and see her again so his father did.) An arrangement where she was not quite a prostitute but not quite a kept woman: sex plus making him coffee in the morning. "It was rather beastly" suggests they had entertained somewhat divergent ideas about the nature and significance of their relationship (not that this necessarily means she had naïvely believed in a future together, or something). Does she reappear later in the novel?--Rallette (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, she does reappear, falling further. After six months she is irredeemble. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reached the bit where she bounces back. But I won't spoil it for the rest of you. no coffee involved. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a note—"coffee" is mentioned several times in The Incomplete Amorist. Bus stop (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What was her employment at the time that they met? Did she possibly work in a coffee house? The statement, "God knows how an English girl got into it", could be a reference to the likelihood that a French girl would be employed in a Parisian cafe—not an English girl. Bus stop (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Lawyers, Guns And Money by Warren Zevon, begins: "Well, I went home with the waitress, The way I always do ". Documentation for that can be found here. Bus stop (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Rallette has the most convincing explanation. She lived with him, had sex with him, and made him coffee in the morning. She was the coffee maker. There were no mechanical coffee makers (that I'm aware of) when this book was written in 1906. She got up, ground (probably pre-roasted) coffee beans with a hand grinder, then boiled water and brewed the coffee. There is no reason to assume that she worked as a waitress or in a café. What is surprising is that an English woman at that time (when English women were brought up to be prudent and proper) would get into such a relationship with a Frenchman whose intentions were unclear. Marco polo (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The status of "kept woman" is often discussed in literature of the period. It was assumed that it would be a constant temptation for women without inherited wealth or education. In real life probably many women probably did life happily for years in such a manner. But in literature there must always be the warning that it is a slippery slope to actual prostitution. And when a woman has fallen so far, there is no way up again. Fowles' The French Lieutenant's Woman has digressions on this topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with BrainyBabe that it is not clear what "the usual coffee maker business" refers to. If "coffee maker business" refers to "a kept woman" shouldn't we find other instances of this use or related usages? I kind of doubt that E. Nesbit is having her characters invent references, or assigning significance to turns of phrases—unless there was already some precedent in actual language usage. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There is at least one related usage, but American rather than British. Apparently there's a Coffee Grindin' Blues, dating from 1929, which includes the line 'I'm a coffee-grindin' mama, won't you let me grind you some?'. In his Barrelhouse Words: A Blues Dialect Dictionary Stephen Calt explains this as being 'From coffee-grinder, a conventional slang term for prostitute (DAS). The expression probably derives from coffee-house, an 18th- to 19th-century term for vagina (F&H, 1891; Partridge).' The abbreviations refer to Wentworth and Flexner's Dictionary of American Slang, Farmer and Henley's Slang and its Analogues, and Eric Partridge's Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. I wish Calt were citing coffee-grinder from a dictionary of British slang though, since Nesbit's characters were apparently English. --Antiquary (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the explaination is similar to Rallette but not quite? Coffee maker might effectively be an euphemism for a woman who is living with (and having sex with) a man. Officially she is his 'coffee maker' and that's why she lives with him (I presume making it more than once a day). Whether she makes many coffees is not really relevant (perhaps for guests to keep up appearances). Since 'English girls' aren't supposed to be doing that sort of thing, you won't find it much in novels set in England. It's supposedly more common in France (and I guess other countries were coffee is popular and their girls aren't so 'nice'), whether or not that's true, so if it was common you'll primarily find it in novels by English authors set in such locations of that era. Nil Einne (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"Coffeemaker" as a euphemism for "common-law wife" is plausible. In the US, newspapers would refer to a woman as a "housekeeper" when she was murdered by the man she lived with in a tumbledown tarpaper shack with a dirt floor. Edison (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

question on Yugoslav republics

In the former Yugoslavia there is say a town. And, then there is a municipality with the same name, which includes the town and many surrounding settlements. So it could have anywhere between 10 and 200 settlements. Well, the problem is that many wikipedia pages treat municipalities and these towns as the same. I would like to start separating municipalities from towns. Would that be okay? I am not sure. Sometimes I think it would be good, at other times I think it wouldn't be. :/ (LAz17 (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)).

It would be best to try to get some consensus on this on a relevant page, for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yugoslavia. My inclination would be to separate out the distinct topics, but there may have been a reason for combining articles on the two - for example, in the UK, parishes often contain a single village and, in these cases, there has been a move to have just one article describing both the parish and the village. Warofdreams talk 17:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

June 16

Arab Ships sewn with thread

I've read several Judeo-Islamic, Chinese, and English sources that stated the Arabs used to literally sew their ships together with coconut thread as opposed to using nails. All of these sources mention how frail these ships were. If this is true, why did they continue to use such a flawed design for hundreds of years? The Arabs came into contact with all sorts of people with different ship building techniques, so it's not like this is the only method they knew. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do you assume that the ships would be frail and that the technology flawed? The Kon-Tiki, which was held together by hemp rope managed quite an extraordinary journey. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"All of these sources mention how frail these ships were." And there is a big difference between a one man raft and a 20 man boom. The book I'm currently reading says one modern boat built in the traditional manner (all wood, no nails, and plenty of sewing) weighed 140 tons. Plus, I'm pretty sure there is a big strength difference between hemp rope and coconut rope. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It was not a one man raft. It had a crew of six men. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Coconut fibre rope is properly called coir. "Hemp is the best fibre, of great strength and durability, flexible when wet and wears to the last rope yarn. Best is Italian then European, New Zealand and St. Helena. The Admiralty dismiss Indian hemp as not suitable for reliable cordage. Coir is light and floats, does not absorb water, stretches before parting but very low strength."[19] Alansplodge (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As to why the Arabs used coir over iron nails... It was probably a matter of cost and availability of materials. Coconut palms could be found just about everywhere the Arabs sailed. So building/rearing a ship with coconut thread was relatively cheep. Iron, on the other hand, was not found everywhere. Deposits had to be located. The ore had to be mined, transported, smelted, and worked into nails. That made iron nails relatively expensive. Blueboar (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This makes a lot of sense to me. It's better to have a ship that can be repaired anywhere with a cheap materials and low-level skill set, than a stronger ship that required relatively higher-tech, scarcer, more expensive materials. Also consider: How many coir-sewn boats could be built for the cost of one iron-nailed? How much more buoyant is the coir-sewn boat? SemanticMantis (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I also found this snippet at Maldives:

"(coir) is stronger than hemp," wrote Ibn Battuta, "and is used to sew together the planks of Sindhi and Yemeni Dhows, for this sea abounds in reefs, and if the planks were fastened with iron nails, they would break into pieces when the vessel hit a rock. The coir gives the boat greater elasticity, so that it doesn't break up."

• nb I'm not sure in what sense (if any) coir is stronger than hemp. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

We may be bringing a prejudice to this, thinking as we commonly do about sewing and thread being used to construct nothing much more substantial than articles of clothing. There may be more to their methods of construction than meets the eye. I would guess that holes were first bored through the wood with some kind of an auger in a separate step, before thread was laced through the holes. And then I would guess that a protective substance was coated onto the "stitches" after completion. The thread itself may have been pretreated to enhance certain properties before even being used. But this is just guesswork on my part—I am not familiar with the actual process. Bus stop (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct about your assumptions. They actually had to sew up the sides of the ship before they even added the ribbing. The only thing they added to the stitching on the inside was vegetable oil. On the outside, they plugged up the space of the drill holes (not filled by the stitching) with more coconut fiber and some type of gooey substance. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Another reference to the strength of coir rope here: "It is a very elastic, rough rope about one-fourth the strength of hemp but light enough to float on water." Alansplodge (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

THE HISTORY AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE DHOW has a lot of information about the origins of this technique which "go back to Egypt's primitive times". Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I know from wp:or that hemp is much stronger than coir, when comparing twisted cordage of the same ply and diameter. Do we think the Ibn Battuta is just wrong, or is perhaps coir stronger when comparing cordage of different diameter, but same weight-per-length? SemanticMantis (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there's a clue in the quote above; "The Admiralty dismiss Indian hemp as not suitable for reliable cordage." Hemp is a cultivated plant - perhaps the varieties available at that time and place were not very good. Alansplodge (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I always thought that Indian hemp was a synonym for the marijuana plant? --TammyMoet (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Indian hemp variants are the primary source of cannabis. They also provide fiber, but of comparatively low quality. BTW, Hemp#Cordage states that hemp rope for naval use tended to rot when wet unless carefully tarred. This might explain why it was not used for an application where it is in permanent contact with water. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, because (pre petro-chemicals) tar was a product of coniferous trees and wouldn't be available in the Indian Ocean. Alansplodge (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No, more because it would be very hard to keep a piece of rope that runs through and works against an underwater plank tarred. Tarring had to be repeated over and over again to be effective. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

For an example of something "sewn together" which is quite strong, think of a suspension bridge. The advantage of this technique is that it's both strong and flexible, to allow for thermal expansion, wind buffeting, vibrations, etc., which might bring down a more rigid bridge of that size. This approach also produces a lighter, less expensive bridge. One potential disadvantage, though, is that the increased surface area of all those cables means more opportunity for corrosion (or rotting, if plant fibers were used), so continuous preventative maintenance is required. StuRat (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ethical egoism vs rational egoism

What is the point of difference between ethical egoism and rational egoism? --999Zot (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Read the third sentence of Ethical egoism. --Jayron32 03:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The article Jayron32 suggests is faulty. Ethical egoism is the belief that the interests of the self are paramount, even if hedonistic or subjective. Rational egoism holds more narrowly that the self is the proper beneficiary of ethical action, but that values must be rationally identified, not merely subjectively or at the level of sensation. Aristotle's, Spinoza's and Ayn Rand's philosophies and the philosophies of various but not all Stoics are forms of rational egoism. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Forms of ethical egoism that are not forms of rational egoism include Thomist Catholicism, Nietzscheanism, and the satanism of Anton LeVay. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Faulty, how so? The question is about philosophical terms which have a more or less generally accepted meaning. Something you check in a work of reference, basically, so you'll excuse me while I defer to reputable authorities. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy both give succinct definitions which are equivalent to those in our article "Ethical egoism", whose first sentence in turn is essentially taken from the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, under "Egoism". Based on these three authorities, I'd say the generally accepted meanings of the terms are roughly these: rational egoism holds that selfishness is rational, while ethical egoism holds that selfishness is ethical. (Salt and pepper with iff's and other formalities to taste.) In particular, on these definitions rational egoism is not a flavour of ethical egoism, for a rational act can still be held to be unethical, and ethics can be irrational. A hedonist rational egoism is perfectly possible, too. What Medeis calls "rational egoism" could be called "rational ethical egoism", and indeed has been so called. And so as not to leave it dangling, "rational ethical egoism" and "rational egoism" are compatible, but again, they are not the same thing.--Rallette (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(Cont'd) Of course we also have an article "Rational egoism", where it is noted that Ayn Rand used the term in the sense "rational ethical egoism". Since Rand's ideas are popular, this usage may be frequently encountered. Anyway, Rand was not merely defining rationality by reference to self-interest, as "rational egoism" in the standard sense does.--Rallette (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Rallette, that does help. Now lets take the normative ethical position to applied level. So according to Rand's rational self-interest robbery will be wrong, but robbery will be ok according to rational egoism, right?

And from the article Ethical egoism, "Ethical egoism does not, however, require moral agents to harm the interests and well-being of others when making moral deliberation; e.g. what is in an agent's self-interest may be incidentally detrimental, beneficial, or neutral in its effect on others." So ethical egoism approves of robbery, right? --999Zot (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, for Rand, robbery would be irrational, and thus wrong, basically because it is ignoble and base, and nobility is what a rational being strives to attain. (As far as I understand her, and using my own words.) But Rand has a comprehensive theory. Rational egoism as such is neutral here. Ditto ethical egoism. Ethical egoism and rational egoism are fundamental positions, or classes of theories even, and you need a lot more before you have a theory of ethics that can be applied to conduct towards other agents. So to be clear, I need to answer your question in two different ways. If you mean to ask, "Is rational egoism (or ethical egoism) compatible with holding that robbing others is all right?" then the answer would be yes (imagine a very vulgar social Darwinism or amoral hedonism). But if you're asking, "Does it follow from rational egoism (or ethical egoism) that robbing others is all right?" then the answer is no (as in Rand).--Rallette (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. the thesis of Rational Egoism is no more that Egoism is Rational than the thesis of Logical Positivism is that Positivism is Logical. Ethical egoism is the broader notion that the self, rather than the collective, or the priesthood, or the state, or so on, is the proper beneficiary of moral action, and rational egoism is the belief that those values which benefit the self should be rational ones, not random or subjective "do whatever you want" ones. The rational in rational egoism refers to the types of values that benefit the ego, not the rationality of the moral position itself. μηδείς (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I repeat, this is a question of terminology: not something to argue about but rather something that needs to be cleared up before argument can begin. The standard usage in (analytical) philosophy is that "rational egoism" is a theory of rationality. Probably the most common nonstandard usage is that of Rand (or authors influenced by her), by which "rational egoism" is a theory of what kinds of values are worth pursuing. My answer was based on the standard usage, and I did note the other usage exists. I hope this is now clear. And also, rational egoism by the standard definition does not state that ethical egoism is rational but that egoism is rational, that is, self-interest is the measure of rationality. This leaves open the question of what constitutes self-interest, which might be whim, pleasure, social status, divine illumination, whatever.--Rallette (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The phrases have meanings in context. There is no point in specifying ethical egoism if the debate is only about ethics--in that case you just call it egoism. The point of saying ethical egoism is to differentiate it from other terms such as psychological egoism. The same for rational egoism on a narrower scale. The person who uses the term rational egoism is leaving the fact that he is discussing ethics for granted, and is differentiating his position from, say, what he would perhaps criticize as, say, subjective, unenlightened or hedonistic egoism. In neither case does use of the phrase rational or ethical egoism have to do with arguing that egoism of any sort is necessarily rational or ethical. (No socialist calls socialism "rational socialism" because he thinks socialism is rational.) Rather the qualifying terms are meant to differentiate those notions from egoism in fields other than ethics or forms of ethical egoism that are not based on normative reasoning from those which are.

With fuel prices these days, could it be cheaper to ship gasoline from Venezuela?

Venezuela's fuel wouldn't cost more than 25¢/gallon, last I checked. With fuel being $3.50-$3.60/gallon in my neck of the woods nowadays, would it be cheaper just to order it from Venezuela and have them shipped to my address?

Let's say I ordered 100 gallons at a time. The fuel itself would be $25. Of all the shipping options I have available in Kansas, which of them would help me come out ahead of just filling up at a local station? How much would it cost per gallon after all those shipping fees? --66.142.211.104 (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Commodities shortages, whether famines or fuel crises, are politically caused. There is more than enough cheap petroleum available from easily accessed land based wells for America from the American mainland. The high prices are caused by regulation, taxes, and uncertainty, all of which are political issues.

The gas crises of the 1970's (1970s energy crisis) were caused by external pressures 1973 oil embargo. Iranian revolution, met by domestic statism. One of Reagan's first acts as President was to repeal price controls. This caused the 1980s oil glut. Regulation since Clinton (and with the complicity of GWB and approval of Obama) has returned to the burdensome level of the Carter era. The solution is not to subsidixe Chavez, but to end the self-imposed leftist political suicide of the United States at home.μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Venezuela, and some other countries, massively subsidize gasoline for internal consumption. They aren't going to subsidize it for shipment to the USA. Also they wouldn't even be able to refine enough to meet a significant fraction of US demand. Looie496 (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And, of course, Venezuela is rationing both gasoline and electricity, given that Chavez is using both to stay in power. μηδείς (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Long answer: I seriously doubt Venezuelan tariffs would allow for that to be economical (try searching for Venezuelan tariffs on Google... I'm too lazy to do it on my smartphone). What's more, with an industry like gasoline where the big boys roll: if there is a way to do something more economically within the law (and often outside the law... IIRC Iranian oil makes it to the US, just at a premium), it will be done.

Short answer: no. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not commenting on this particular case, but it's not always true that "Commodities shortages, whether famines or fuel crises, are politically caused". Some commodities are rare, and are in short supply, regardless of how efficient that supply might be. That's part of the thinking behind a gold standard. A famine following a natural disaster has much more to do with difficulties in acquiring and transporting food at a cost which can be afforded by those in need - in such a case, there can potentially be a political solution to the famine, if the government or an international agency is minded to distribute free or cheap food at a loss, in order to avert starvation. Warofdreams talk 10:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Reality has a way of catching up with people... including dictators. Shadowjams (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Is that a reply to me? If so, I don't follow how it relates to my comment. Warofdreams talk 11:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget the export and import duties you would almost certainly have to pay (if you wanted to do it legally). The best clue that it wouldn't work is because if it did, people would be doing it already (and on large enough scales that the price of gas in the US would be the lowest you can get it under that method, so you wouldn't be able to make a saving by doing it). --Tango (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition to export and import duties, there would be fuel tax due to both the federal government and to the state of Kansas. Attempting to move fuel across borders without paying those duties and taxes would amount to the smuggling of contraband. If you pay the taxes and duties, there is no way that you can ship the fuel more efficiently or at a cheaper price than the cheapest-price gasoline available in your area. The reason is that profit margins on gasoline (at the cheaper service stations) are minuscule and would be greatly exceeded by your higher cost relative to corporate oil companies because you would not be able to realize the considerable economies of scale that they can achieve. Marco polo (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Land worth negative value

I was recently thinking about the Silverdome, which was sold for a ghastly $550,000 at the height of the Great Recession. However, the Detroit area is rife with economic problems in government, so it wouldn't surprise me if the taxes are considerably higher than the purchase price.

Theoretically, this means that if the value that could be extracted from the land were even slightly less, then it would be unprofitable to buy.

Has there ever been a case where a landowner was unable to sell his land because the taxes or other governmental burden was too high? And in such a situation, is there a legal clause in any jurisdictions that would allow the owner to forfeit the land to avoid the taxes (thus turning the land over to the municipality/state), or is it conceivable that an entity would be an unwilling owner of land and forced to pay taxes and perform maintenance for property it didn't want to own (and would those taxes even be enforceable legally)? Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article Abandonment that mentions dereliction of property but does not try to describe the legal consequences, let alone do so for all jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions allow depreciation in property value to be deducted from other corporate income. A non-corporate individual whose assets are less than the tax levied has these possibilities: 1) Seek an agreement with the taxation authority on an extended payback plan, 2) Borrow money or 3) Declare personal Bankruptcy. Becoming fugitive or dead might also work. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Abandonment is actually an old common law concept that carried over into much of English and American statutory law. While I'm no expert on it, it's one of those interesting ancient law concepts that comes up considerably in messy legal situations to this day. The tax implications are largely an IRS question, and so a tax expert would have to comment on those.

That said, abandonment is philosophically indistinguishable from property and its philosophical equivalents. Shadowjams (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree with your premise that the taxes are higher than the value of the property. Virtually everywhere in the USA that uses property taxes sets the taxes as a small percentage of the assessed value of the property. If you buy a property cheap, you can petition to have that cheap price be considered the new assessed value, and that's usually a winning argument. So if the assessed value is $550,000, then the Silverdome pays $29,519 a year in property taxes (at the link, select "Oakland County", then "Pontiac"). --M@rēino 18:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

When did a sitting president last lose a primary challenge?

So the primary politics are distant, but the battelines are being drawn for the Republican nomination. All eyes are on Palin, Pawlenty, Romney etc, but none are on Obama because as a sitting president he is almost certain to be his party's nominee. My question is when was the last time a sitting president contested but lost the battle for nomination, not counting people who did not seek a second term (such as Johnson, though he could be considered an example). Many thanks, 91.85.140.182 (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... I can't think of any sitting president (who sought re-election) that has ever lost a primary challenge. Several (like Johnson) decided not to run ... and some of them might have lost if they had run... but that is pure speculation. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The list of US presidents that didn't serve two consecutive terms is fairly short - just read the Wikipedia articles on each of those and see why. --Tango (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure it has ever happened in the Primary election system (which is not all that old, all things considered). As you noted, there have been times when a sitting President was eligible for re-election and declined to stand (indeed, before Franklin Delano Roosevelt, every two-term president voluntarily meets this requriement out of tradition), however I don't know of a case where a sitting President, since the Primary system was put into place (the first proper primary election occured in Oregon in 1910, see United_States_presidential_primary#History). There have, however, been cases where a sitting president did not receive his party's nomination, depending on how you define "party". Andrew Johnson was nominally a Democrat, but was officially the member of a coalition of both Democrats and Republicans known as the "National Union". The National Union failed to materialize as an actual political party, he sought the nomination from the Democratic Party, his former party before the civil war. He did not receive it. See 1868 Democratic National Convention. Also see John Tyler who bolted the Democratic-Republican Party to join the Whigs in 1836, and was elected as the Whig Vice President in 1840. He became President on the death of William Henry Harrison, and quickly became so disliked that he was thrown out of the Whig party shortly thereafter (see John_Tyler#Policies). He was essentially partyless for the rest of his Presidency, and though he attempted to form a break-away party and run for the Presidency at its helm in 1844, he ultimately withdrew from the 1844 election and supported the Democratic Party candidate, James K. Polk. See United_States_presidential_election,_1844#National_Democratic_Tyler_Convention. It should be noted that neither Tyler nor Johnson were ever elected as Presidents in their own right, both ascended to the Presidency on the death of their predecessors, and neither were very popular men. --Jayron32 15:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There any number of "what ifs" that are interesting to speculate on... would Charles Cotesworth Pinckney have defeated John Adams if the Federalist Party had held a primary before the election of 1800? If Teddy Roosevelt had run for a (third) term in 1908, would William Taft have run in opposition (and who would have won if there had been a primary system)? Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• If I take your question, "When did a sitting president last lose a primary challenge?", exactly as you worded it, then the answer is June 8, 1976, when Governor Reagan defeated President Ford in the California primary. I think that the first time that a sitting president lost a primary challenge would be April 2, 1968, when Senator McCarthy beat President Johnson in Wisconsin. Before the 1960s, there were very, very few primaries -- caucuses and conventions, yes, but not many primaries.--M@rēino 18:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• In the past, (before primaries) in my home state, national convention delegates were selected in state party conventions. The state party convention delegates were in turn chosen in county caucuses (which were not widely publicized), in which all persons (might have been restricted to registered voters) who wished to do so attended a meeting at some location such as the county courthouse and "caucussed." Typically officeholders from the party in the county their friends and families, and persons from the party holding patronage jobs and their families and friends were establishment presence to swamp any random citizens who showed up, but if there were sufficient dissidents(activists or persons paid to show up by some financial interest) they would get a proportionate share of the delegation to the state convention. A primary resulted in a far larger proportion of the voters having a say. Edison (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

online translator

Is there a online translator for translating Somali into English and English into Somali? Also, is there an online Translator where you translate Arabic into English and English into Arabic and at the same time it gives you the English transliteration of the Arabic text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.41.211 (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Google Translate is the best online translator I know of. It does Arabic, although Somali doesn't seem to be on the list. --Tango (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Comparison from 2011 v 1991 & 1991 v 1971

After just watching The Silence of the Lambs, it struck me that the film looked "modern" e.g. clothes, hair-styles, cars, (although as a Brit, I am not that familiar with US vehicles) - obviously some of the technology was a give-away.

However, if you look at a movie from 20 years prior to this "time" e.g. Dirty Harry, the difference is astonishing, the clothes, fashions, vehicles and also casual attitudes to "racism" & "sexism" are so very "dated"

Another more extreme example would be Back To The Future

Marty McFly travels from 1985 to 1955, which is another world to him, but to me, 1985 (26 years ago) seems very similar to today

• The clothes Marty wears could be "normal" for 2011 (but note he had to get changed into 50's "gear")
• Marty's haircut is passable for modern-day style
• Van Halen (played in the movie) are still touring - How many bands from the 50's were still popular in the 80's?

Obviously the big give-away (as usual) is the technology, the Sony Walkman looks so old fashioned & the also the Camcorder

So my question is:

How can there be such big changes through the early decades?

• Roaring 20's
• Depression Era 30's
• Wartime 40's
• 50's as shown in BTTF
• 60's hippy movement/flower power
• 70's as shown in Dirty Harry
• 80's - yes I agree there is an 80's style, but not that different from today

But the last few decades are very similar (apart for the massive advances in technology) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaseywasey (talk • contribs) 17:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on certain parts of your analysis. Firstly, hairstyles have changed a LOT from the 1980's to today. Men generally kept their hair longer in the 1980's. Marty McFly's mop looks very dated to me; men today seem to keep shorter hair on average (though of course, there are men who then as now keep very long hair). Secondly, facial hair has changed a LOT. In the 1980's, men either wore the "porn 'stache" or were clean shaven. Since the mid 1990's there has been a wide explosion of men who keep goatees; prior to the 1990's the only people who wore goatees were supervillains in comic books. Women in the 1980's wore some very different hair styles, this big front poof was ubiquitous and unique to the 1980s. Have you seen women in blazers with sholder pads or in leotards and leg warmers recently, except as an ironic homage to the 1980s? The oversized sweater with the torn out collar? I do agree that things have been relatively stagnant since the mid 1990's, with the only significant fashion trends in the past 15 years have been goth/emo and the "combforward" hairstyle you see on young hipster men. The average person dresses and keeps their hair relatively similar to what was seen in, say, 1995 as they do today... --Jayron32 18:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that you use the word "stagnant" to describe unchanging fashions. I would call them "stable" or even "classic", as I don't appreciate having to toss out my entire wardrobe on a regular basis. The more interesting question is why fashion designers, who obviously want us to have to continuously buy new clothes, have been less successful at changing fashions lately. StuRat (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Styles of eyewear have also changed significantly , particularly for women. Business wear has changed: "casual Fridays" did not begin until the end of the 1980s, and were a very marginal phenomenon; nowadays, it's the few workplaces that have formal dress codes that stand out. This also goes for clothes for going out: most fancy restaurants would not admit male clients who did not wear a tie in the 1980s. That's disappeared too. Styles of footwear have also evolved greatly once you're outside the "kids wearing sneakers" demographic. --Xuxl (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to distinguish between "youth" styles and "adult" styles... a men's business suit from 1930 would not seem at all out of place if worn to a business meeting today. The biggest difference would be that in 1930 you would wear a hat with it, while today you would not. And the hair cuts would be about the same as well.

Women's fashion has changed far more dramatically than men's fashion. Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

While business suits haven't changed, men's hairstyle has changed a lot. Men today don't use the same sorts of styling products like Dippity-Do and Vitalis and stuff like that, men's hair has a much more "natural" look today than in, say, the pre-1960 time period. The "slicked back" look of most men's hair is very dated to a pre-1960 time period. Hair in men from that time period had a heavier, greasier look to it almost universally. While men do certainly use hair products to style their hair, they get very different results today. --Jayron32 18:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with most of the above. Also note that there are meta-answers as well. First, the joke of the movie was Marty being a fish out of water in 1955 so they purposefully pointed out and highlighted the differences for comic effect. The second will be your age (speaking to the OP). If you were alive in 1985, you'd be less conscious of the differences that have accumulated over the last 25 years because they're part of your general mindset of what constitutes "normal". I'd also like to add that I loved that series of films a lot more before I became conscious of the massive and blatant product placement everywhere. Matt Deres (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding The Silence of the Lambs mentioned above, I remember a behind-the-scenes documentary on it, and in it the costume designer for the film mentioned that she specifically strove for more ageless clothing for everyone, rather than what would have been characteristic of the early 1990s. Costume designers and hair stylists in Hollywood often face this choice: Do I make the actors look snazzy (but possibly ephemeral) or timeless? Just look at the recent Lord of the Rings series. One of the reasons all the male actors have very long hair (rather than something more contemporary) is so that kids will be able to watch the films thirty-five years from now without laughing at (what would by then be) ridiculous early twenty-first century hairdos. My guess is that around the advent of home cinema in the early 1980s Hollywood realised that there's a lot of money to be made on old films, and consequently started taking more care to make many (but not all) new films more timeless with regards to clothes and haircuts. Gabbe (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, one of the things which "dates" the original "Star Trek" series is how stuck in the 1960s all of the hairstyles and costumes are. How many of the alien species have females which look like 1960s Go-Go dancers, just painted green or something. Uhura's beehive belongs squarely in the 1960s. By the time they got to the Next Generation and later series, the costumes seem to be deliberately more "timeless" as you note; which is why episodes of ST:TNG and ST:DSN seem to stand up much better in terms of seeming more realistic, you can't look at an episode in ST:TNG and say "That is so 1989", the way you can say "That is so 1969" with the original series. You could air The Next Generation today and it would blend in just fine. It's not like there weren't contemporary styles they could have used which would have dated the show, but they deliberately chose clothes which are harder to place in a specific era. --Jayron32 21:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: casual attitudes to "racism" & "sexism" are so very "dated" in 1971 films compared to 1991, it could be that the civil rights movements of the 50s and 60s, into the 70s, caused a huge change in general attitudes towards women and non-white Americans in general. Some relevant links might be African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968), Native American civil rights, etc, and, I'm not sure what page best describes the "womens civil rights movement" of the era, but perhaps Second-wave feminism? Anyway, while I think Back to the Future purposefully portrayed a caricatured, stereotyped past, as do many films showing past eras, there were some major, historic changes with regard to racism and sexism during the middle 20th century. Pfly (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how you look at it. In 1991, few people had heard of the Internet or cellphones. Cars were boxier, few people had SUVs and no one had hybrids. U.S. television was still dominated by the traditional big three networks, which aired programs like Full House, Home Improvement and Growing Pains. Number-one singles included works by Wilson Phillips, Amy Grant and Roxette. The Soviet Union was still around. Terrorism had not been a major issue in the U.S. for nearly 70 years. People were still being prosecuted for sodomy in the U.S. South Africa still had apartheid. It was in some ways a very different time. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Domestic and international terrorism were both actually major issues for Americans (in the sense that it was covered in the media extensively) in the 1970s and the 1980s. The level of domestic terrorism in the 1970s was actually quite astounding by modern standards — the number of politically motivated bombings, for example, was at an all time high for the US. (Not Islamic — it was far left, far right. Weathermen, John Birch, and Puerto Rican nationalists. Guys who hijacked planes and took them to Cuba. For a pretty riveting account, check out Rick Perlstein's Nixonland. Even the use of the phrase "War on Terrorism" is considerably older than the 2000s.) In the 1980s you start to see Islamic terrorism against the US abroad — the 1983 United States embassy bombing being perhaps the most significant. Anyway, all of this is just to point out that terrorism did not just pop out of nowhere for Americans in the 1990s or the 2000s. If you don't count Southern Civil Rights related terrorism, you see it mostly pop out of nowhere in the early 1970s. If you count church bombings, etc., as terrorism, then it goes back a lot further, with a lot of national attention to the issue in the 1960s. A pretty useful barometer are the number of times terrorism as an issue appeared on the cover of Time magazine.[20] --Mr.98 (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely it's not true that few people had heard of cellphones? In the UK, one of the stereotypes of yuppies in the 1980s was conspicuously using a very large mobile phone which probably only worked in the centre of a few major cities. Warofdreams talk 09:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A classic example of this is the beach cell phone scene from Wall Street. Cell phones were certainly known but they were not extremely common amongst the middle class. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the most drastic comparison would be the time period between the two major US events in the 1960s: the John F. Kennedy assassination in 1963 and the first manned landing on the moon in 1969. Looking at pictures showing the clothes, hairstyles, cars, television programmes, lifestyles of the respective years, it is hard to realise that a mere six years separates the two events. Even the music was radically different. From Kyu Sakamoto's tender Japanese love song in 1963 to the Rolling Stones performing Sympathy For the Devil live at Altamont in 1969!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of people had carphones in the early 90s, but few had cellphones. Michael Douglas's cellphone in Wall Street was probably the first appearance of the device in widely seen fiction, and there it was a sign of opulence. As late as 1994, in the Simpsons episode "Bart Gets Famous," Bart having a cellphone in school is a joke. (A kid with a cellphone? That's hilarious!) I agree with Jeanne that the 1960s was probably the decade with the most-rapid change in the West, at least socially. It's interesting to contrast a picture of a baseball crowd from the 1950s, like this one, with one from 10 years later. In the 50s, the men were all clean-shaven and short-haired and usually wore suits and dress hats. In the late 60s, you'd see a mix of hairstyles and guys wearing jeans, like you'd see now. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Lillian Gish, whose movie career dated back to early silent films, said that she avoided wearing clothing in whatever was the current fashion, and whenever possible wore dresses designed along "classic lines" (whatever that might imply), so that her appearance would not be dated and funny looking when the movies were watched in later years. (This would not have applied to the many "period " or historical films she made). Someone above mentioned "Dippity Do" as a men's hair gel. It was marketed for women, and I question it being commonly used by men (unless they put their hair in curlers). In the forties and fifties men commonly used greasy hair control products like Brylcreem or Wildroot Cream Oil, or as an alternative, oily products like Vitalis. The goal was to have hair that stayed combed and looked well groomed, as opposed to blowing around in the wind. Those more athletic or military with a Crew cut might use Butch Wax. Post Elvis, more men had sideburns. Only with the advent of the Beatles (circa 1964) long hair became popular (at least in the US) among younger males. Movies of the late 70's or eighties show men with "Big Hair," using hairspray or stiffening gel to keep the 'do from being flat. Hair gel seems to have more in common with Butch Wax than with Brylcreem, and allows hair to stick up oddly. Poofy hair and big glasses on women in a film suggest the 80's. In the late 1970's and the 80's after a famous Farah Fawcett swimsuit poster, it was fairly common for women in film to let the shape of their nipples show through blouses or swimsuits, something which seem to be banned by networks today, and very uncommon in society in general. Edison (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What we consider to be "the 60s" really ran from the mid-late-60s to the late-70s, and it was a freer time before the slide back towards puritanism and various kinds of political correctness. In the film Norma Rae, Sally Field seemed to be braless throughout, and it didn't seem like such a big deal at the time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I used Dippity-do all the time to keep my flattop in place. Dippity-do most certainly was a male product. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ashes to Ashes (TV series) is a look at the early 1980s from a modern perspective. Social attitudes to woman and minorities were very different then. The predecessor, Life on Mars (TV series) looks at the 1970s, and there is a US version too.-gadfium 20:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

British monarchy

Why does Britain still have a monarchy? --75.40.204.106 (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

So that Australia (and 14 other countries) can borrow it. (Just making the point that the British monarchy also happens to be the monarchy of other quite independent countries as well.) I guess the reason is the sum of its history. What legal power the monarchy once had has been legislated away of the centuries, but it's apparent that a big chunk of the population likes the ceremonial stuff surrounding a monarchy. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's good for tourism and it's good for the yellow press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.12.164 (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It also means that the British people are no better off than they were during the Dark Ages when the monarchy was created. --75.40.204.106 (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Because without it, you would have no-one to blame for the emptiness and failure of your life. You really have become very boring. DuncanHill (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

What? I'm not British. I'm opposed to all monarchies (and authoritarian governments in general), but the British monarchy is the most well-known. --75.40.204.106 (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Then go and stand on a street-corner somewhere and mumble at passers-by. If you're not British, what the hell do you imagine it has to do with you? DuncanHill (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Should only South Africans have opposed the apartheid? --75.40.204.106 (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The British monarchy is hardly authoritarian. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who imagines that the modern British monarchy is in any way comparable to apartheid is someone who knows nothing of politics. Nothing whatsoever. This is a reference desk, not a soapbox for idiots. DuncanHill (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Duncan, please cool it. If you can't provide a welcoming environment, do not post here at all. Rebut disagreeable statements with facts and references, not personal abuse. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a perennial troll, and I think my assessment of their political nous was if anything rather generous. DuncanHill (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, you know the rules as well as anyone, Duncan. Don't descend to their level, basically. What's the point of having highly developed and hallowed traditions like the monarchy, with all their complex paraphernalia and customs, if individual subjects are still going to behave like troglodytes in their intercourse with their fellow humans. We have to show there's a better way than calling people "idiots", otherwise what's the last 10,000 years of progress all been about? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather than challenging the existence of the monarchy because it's evil, like Apartheid, a more sane approach might be to look at the cost. For the other nations who use that monarchy but don't pay for it, such as Canada and Australia, it more a matter of principle. Republicans in Australia (not the American kind, argue that they should have an Australian as head of state. HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You mention the costs of having a royal family. Arguably (depending on how you do the accounting), the Brits actually take in more money from the royal family than they pay out. Why? Because the royal estate has agreed to forfeit the earnings from the Crown Estate (about 200 million pounds each year), in exchange for being supported by the government through the Civil list. The monarchy "officially" costs about 40 million pounds, although unofficially, they cost a bit more, due to security and such, coming in at around 100 million pounds, depending on the source. This arrangement has been around since George III of the United Kingdom surrendered the income of the crown estates to the government (in return for an annuity from the government), at which point in time the crown estate was making relatively little income. [21] Buddy431 (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Like you say, that depends a lot on how you do the accounting. The Crown Estate is now owned by the government (Under the umbrella of The Crown) and not the royal family itself. It would continue to produce that 200M pounds per year even if the government dispensed with the monarchy and cut all ties with the royal family. APL (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

See Republicanism in the United Kingdom#21st century: popular support for a republic is still lacking, as indicated by Ipsos MORI polling. Meph^talk 00:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC).

In response to the comment "the British people are no better off than they were during the Dark Ages", I have two words: indoor plumbing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

...and these days they have TV to watch the royals. HiLo48 (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Britain doesn't have a Monarchy. It has a pseudo-Monarchy imposed by parliament, as a way of giving a bogus historical 'continuity' to a system in flux. As has been demonstrated on more than one occasion, if the 'Monarch' looks like being an embarrassment, parliament finds an excuse to get rid of him. This system works well for all concerned (i.e. the ruling class in general), as long as nobody admits to the reality of the situation. Occasionally, this can get a bit awkward (usually when a Monarch says something the general population likes more than the elite), but since it is in all concerneds' interest to pretend this isn't going on, by and large it all ticks over nicely. Of course, this has probably been historically true about most monarchies, so don't make any long-term investments in Royal Wedding souvenir manufacturing. Eventually, the British public will probably decide to take this to its logical conclusion, and have a talent show to appoint the next King/Queen. Then again, there are other countries that already find their Head of State that way... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely you aren't referring to the US? I like to think of the British Monarchy as kind of a living, government-funded National Park. Or maybe National Zoo would be a better comparison. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If you really want to understand the British monarchy, Gramsci's analysis of cultural hegemony is a good starting point... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• You might want to look at the failure of the Commonwealth, Chartism and the General Strike for with Britain still has a monarchy. The alliance between the bourgeois aristocracy and bourgeois proper in England, the alliance formed between West Indies interests, Agricultural property holders and Industrial producers over corn laws did come incredibly late; but it came at last. I'd suggest reading some parliamentary history between 1800 and 1840 for why the British bourgeoisie weren't generally republican. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As long as they have the Westminster system, they would need a similar head of state as a republic. Probably something along the lines of Ireland or Israel which is sort of the same thing but with politicians who may not be as respected by citizens who aren't partisans of the same party. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

On Parliament's control over the monarch, is it true that the monarch cannot even abdicate without Parliament's consent? That is, Parliament can "appoint" and "fire" the monarch, but the monarch must serve and cannot just up and quit? If so, or even close to so, it sounds more like a figurehead or even a puppet. Or is it not known? Is one of those "hasn't been tried so who knows?" kinda things? Pfly (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That certainly has the germ of truth in it, Pfly. The last time it was an issue was when King Edward VIII decided he would prefer to marry "the woman he loved", a previously twice-divorced and still currently married American woman, rather than give her up and act in accordance with the wishes of the government and the Church of England, of which he was the Head, both of which organisations found her completely unacceptable as the king's consort. So, to get her, he had to abdicate. But he could not decide unilaterally to just quit at a time of his own choosing. No, it required an act of parliament to change the law to enable him to do this, and his abdication came into effect only when he gave Royal Assent to the abdication bill that had been passed by the Parliament. But at the same time, the government cannot just select some citizen at random and decide they will forthwith be the monarch, like it or not. No, it's a lot more rigidly controlled than that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, now, he had to do all that to make it legal and proper. He no doubt wanted it to be legal and proper because, let's be honest, he wasn't really inclined to just cut his ties to the aristocracy altogether and go get an honest job. Would have been a better story if he had been, but it is what it is.

But suppose he really hadn't cared? Suppose he had just said, you can pass or not pass whatever laws you like, but I decline to be king? What exactly could they have done about it? Cut off his head? --Trovatore (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

He could have declined to carry out the duties of king, but he could not unilaterally decline to be king. The law says who is the monarch, and only another law can change that. Cutting off the head of a monarch for treason against the state has a precedent in England - King Charles I of England. I decline to speculate about how this might have played out in Edward VIII's case. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

And another law couldn't change unless the monarch gave royal assent to it. Warofdreams talk 14:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Although the last time a British monarch refused to assent to a bill was in 1707. I seriously doubt they'd get away with it; or at the very least, a workaround would be found: that's what happened when the Belgian King declined to sign a law in 1990 [22] ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 14:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The other obvious precedent, of course, is James II of England, who fled the country - though he didn't have a lot of choice. 130.88.134.136 (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

While the monarch rules at the behest of the government, the government governs at the behest of the monarch. Some examples: The government defines the extent of the monarch power to rule. The monarch attends a state opening of parliament every year in which the monarch reads out a speech written by the government. At election time the outgoing prime minister visits the monarch to ask permission to hold a general election and after the vote the new prime minister visits the monarch to ask permission to form a government - I'm not aware of any occasion when the monarch has said 'no' or even if they are allowed to say no. As for why we "...still have a monarchy", we tried a couple of alternatives but found it not to our liking. Astronaut (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Reserve power#United Kingdom, George V considered refusing to dissolve Parliament in 1910, but ultimately did agree. The Lascelles Principles cover the grounds on which a Prime Minister might be advised to do so, in future. William IV was the last monarch to dissolve Parliament against the government's wishes - see Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom#Legislature. Warofdreams talk 14:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Nitpick on one of Astronaut's points: the (soon-to-be) PM doesn't ask permission: the monarch asks the PM to form a government; as here - "Her Majesty The Queen has asked me to form a new Government and I have accepted." AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that kind of a formality? I mean, what if Lizzie said to the PM, "Oh, do whatever you want... your call." What would happen then? A constitutional crisis? Or just a good laugh over tea at the Palace? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that would be permission to do whatever he liked. Now, in a situation where the incumbent government is defeated, the Queen invites the leader of the majority party to form a new government, to succeed the incumbent government, which has remained in office in caretaker mode until then. If the Queen couldn't find time in her busy schedule to get around to meeting the leader of the majority party, the incumbent government remains in place. Indefinitely, theoretically. This is because the Monarch is an integral, if unelected, part of the Parliament - it's not just the House of Commons and the House of Lords. People often overlook this fact. But that said, if her delay went on for more than a few days, many people in high and low places would be asking serious questions, and "something would be done". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You've kind of touched upon something that the OP doesn't see, namely that the monarch is not so much a ruler in the traditional way, but rather a leader who's supposed to be above politics. I recall a situation in Thailand some years back, where a similar type of monarch summoned the competing candidates for president, who had been conducting a very vile campaign, and required the candidates to bow before him and apologize for their behavior, on national TV yet.[23] Now, that's leadership. I don't know if the queen would do such a thing, but I could imagine she would consider it, if she thought it was in the nation's best interest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the British have their ways and the Thais have theirs (meditate on that for a few moments). But as as been pointed out here a gazillion times, the monarch of the UK "reigns, but does not rule". There is no sense whatsoever in which Elizabeth II "rules", and there is zero pretence that that is even the case. She does have certain personal prerogatives, such as appointing people to some orders of chivalry that are within her personal gift. But in the execution of her primary responsibilities, she is heavily bound by convention, which can have even greater force than law. Basically, she is ruled to a far, far greater degree than she rules. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The monarch does have real powers but they are only used in certain instances where the course of action isn't obvious. Governors General, who have the same job, have dealt with situations here in Canada in the past. Being seen as above politics is an advantage here. It would be more difficult if the president were an elder statesman from one political party or another. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Because I for one don't want some Pop-Idol photogenic politician to be the figurehead representative of this country, who would inevitably be some kind of Blair or worse...Nicolas Sarkozy PR sleazebag who would need to be re-elected every 5 years at enormous cost, and, if we took the US presidential system on board, would be pretty much a dictator unless we had a major rewriting of checks and balances, which would then need to be re-jigged every few years. Equally, I'm not too keen on losing a system where for minimal (40 pence per person per year) cost, we get a for-their-entire-life-trained guide figure, whose advice has been noted as invaluable from Prime Ministers through every decade, who has contacts with leaders throughout the globe, and who has reserve powers that, regardless of whether they are useable or not, would be a clear flag that something nationally-momentous is happening if a monarch ever attempted to deploy them. You assume that elected officials should in every position in government - but that merely results in a lot of officials who are very good at looking photogenic and making backdoor deals and saying nice things - it's nice to somewhere have someone who doesn't need to do anything except discretely give advice and leadership, who is trained to be an expert at being a leader, not an orator. And especially when they are in no real position -thanks to the balance between Parliament and the Crown - to take total power. The Prime Minister rules, the Monarch reigns, the system works. --114.78.19.232 (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't need another president, we've already got two: 1) that Belgian guy, 2) the Prime Minister. Whatever the Queen does, a waxwork dummy and a rubber stamp would work just as well, because she always does what she's told and hence is no more than a very expensive government puppet. France has a far bigger tourism industry than Britain. The "system worked" for lots of bad rulers in the past. I'd prefer having a weekly bin collection than having a queen. A lot of people adore pop stars as well. Many people cannot see past the lifetime of royal propaganda they have been subjected to. The currant royalty has no more right to be king or queen than I have. 92.29.126.21 (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

June 17

Looking for information on Investing in Guaranteed Mexican Securities or Instruments.189.164.162.20 (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If you are looking for information on investments, I'd suggest that Wikipedia help desks are probably not the ideal place to ask - so if this is the best place you can think of to go for advice, I'd advise you not to invest in " Guaranteed Mexican Securities or Instruments" (whatever they are). AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

... agreed, and anything called an "instrument" is probably an obscure derivative like the ones that ruined many banks. Dbfirs 16:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

And the Guaranteed probably means that it guarantees that the investments are Mexican, not a guarantee of any return rate. Googlemeister (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Securities fraud might be a useful article for the OP to read. Tevildo (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A nymph in mythology

would someone mind telling me about the nymph called Adrasteia? I think I heard in a story she fled from Artemis for some reason. Can someone tell me the story of Adrasteia? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, no one knows anything at all about Adrasteia. Certainly, there is no online encyclopedia that could tell you about Adrasteia. Sorry, no info to be found anywhere about Adrasteia. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait... I found something... not sure how reliable it is, but it turns out that there is at least one online encyclopedia that has some information on Adrasteia. Hope that helps. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, you're a clever pair. I'm awed. Really. I note there's nothing in the article about fleeing from Artemis, so, you know, you could just AGF and tackle that element of the question. Or you could continue to take the piss. Your choice. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Spoilsport...

ok... To try to answer the question with some seriousness, in some myths, Adresteia is equated with the goddess Nemesis... if you go to this website... and do a word search for "Artemis", you will come to the story of the goddess Aura as told in Nonnus's Dionysiaca (48. 375 ff)... in that story, Adresteia/Nemesis pursues Aura at the request of Artemis. In later, religious contects, Adresteia/Nemesis is an aspect of Artemis. Its the closest I can come. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I had run across the same thing when trying to google the subject, and didn't arrive at anything that looked like an answer. There seems to have been more than one Adresteia, as noted in the Adresteia article. The best I could come up with is that when she fled from Artemis, it was probably an arrow escape. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(Groan) :>) Blueboar (talk) 01:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Barangay

in the Philippines, what are the barangay's components or members? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.197.115 (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you read "Barangay"? Gabbe (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Searching for copyright renewal

Some books in the American Guide Series were paid for and copyrighted by entities other than the federal government, but I know that at least some of the copyright holders failed to renew copyright, so I'm trying to learn whether or not copyright was renewed for Cincinnati: A Guide to the Queen City and Its Neighbors — I've never before used any copyright renewal databases. Google showed me a Rutgers page, so I put in "guide to the queen city" and found only two books with "Cincinnati" in the title, neither of which is the book I'm looking for. Does this mean conclusively that its copyright was not renewed? Or is there a possibility that I did something wrong and caused the website to overlook it? Nyttend (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This renewal database is somewhat more accurate and complete. It seems to me that it was not renewed, which would make it public domain fairly conclusively, assuming no errors in transcription or in the database. This is not legal advice, of course, but there is zero indication that it was ever renewed, and if it was renewed, it ought to be in that database. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The US Copyright Office[24] contains a record of such information. For works published before 1976, you will have to search their card catalog in Washington DC. You can pay them to do that for you for an hourly fee and have them send you a report. Should the owners of the copyright have renewed in the 28th year after the publication, then the work is still protected by copyright today. In the 60s, the US Copyright Office did a study and found that only 7% of registered works had their copyright status renewed. The vast majority of works published between 1923 and 1962 are in the public domain (93%). Those published or compliant with the registration process in 1963 or later were grandfathered in with the Copyright Act of 1976 and are protected by copyright. The exception is foreign works after 1923 which had their copyright restored in a special law signed by Bill Clinton. Stanford is not a recognized authority for determining the legal status of a copyrighted work. The authority is the US Copyright Office's card catalog, which you can investigate for free next time you are in DC or you can pay someone to investigate it. A search of the title of the book on Amazon reveals one published in the 80s, so it may have been renewed. Gx872op (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The Stanford site (and the Rutgers site) are just databases of the card catalogs of the Copyright Office. So you can skip the card catalog search, etc., if they do accurately reflect the same Copyright Office card catalogs. The Stanford database in particular is pretty accurate, and has been checked and double-checked for accuracy. It is not meant to be a "recognized legal authority" — it's just a digitized, searchable version of the Copyright Office database. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Spanish language

In For Whom the Bell Tolls chapter 17, Hemingway writes "French, the language of diplomacy. Spanish, the language of bureaucracy". I understand that French is the language of diplomacy because of its role as a court language for hundreds of years, but why is Spanish the language of bureaucracy? (I thought about posting this on the language desk but decided the Humanities desk was better, because this is actually more of an historical/cultural question) 72.128.95.0 (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This is intuition speaking, but I'm fairly sure the first half of the quote is setting up a joke by relating an already commonly known fact and the second half is a cheap dig at some spanish-speaking government(given the context, probably spain). i kan reed (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Holy Roman Emperor Charles V or Frederick the Great said:

“ I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse. ”

Sleigh (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was Charles V, given his rather multiethnic life. He was born in Flanders, his mother was Spanish, and his father was half Burgundian French and half Austrian. He ruled an empire which included Spain, Germany, and much of Italy. He'd have had cause to make such a statement, while Fredrick the Great ruled only Prussia/Brandenburg (admittedly a powerful nation, but still just a German one). --Jayron32 04:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That's one of those quotes widely attributed to someone, yet we don't know for certain whether they ever said it. We do know, on the other hand, that Mikhail Lomonosov said this (in translation):

“ Charles V, the Roman Emperor, used to say that one should speak Spanish with God, French with friends, German with enemies, and Italian with the female sex. But if he had been skilled in Russian, he would, of course, have added that one can speak it with all of them, for he would have found in it the magnificence of Spanish, the vivacity of French, the strength of German, the delicacy of Italian, and in addition the richness and conciseness of Greek and Latin. ”

This article (doi:10.2307/2492939) argues that the quote is much less incisive than it is typically held up to be. Gabbe (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Most respected contemporary Muslim religious leaders

Who are the most respected contemporary Muslim religious leaders among Sunnis and Shi'ites? — goethean ॐ 16:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Aga Khan IV is fairly well respected. Officially, he is only the leader of the Ismailism Muslims, but I have never heard anyone speak ill of him, regardless of their particular standing in Islam. --Jayron32 16:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Now I want to just prove you wrong, but BLP issues would get in the way. i kan reed (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily; I don't see where you couldn't produce, say well respected references which are critical of the Aga Khan, either personally or as a leader... --Jayron32 22:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Business ethics

Why do the governments of some countries legislate how buisnesses from their country can behave in other countries? It would seem to put them at a competative disadvantage to countries that do not do this. For example, Country A has strict buisness laws that do not allow bribes or inducements to people in Country B. Country C has no such laws and can simply pay the minister who is in charge of selecting which company can do the $10,000,000 contract (in Country B) an under the table payment of $20,000 to virtually guarentee they get the job. Wouldn't that just drive all the business to Country C leaving Country A with a lot of idle workers? Googlemeister (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No, just the businesses that lack ethics. My company has very strict rules about such things. You might make a short-term profit but damage yourself in the long term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, unethical behavior may have short term benefits, but it has larger long-term costs. We've seen this in the case of petroleum companies that piss off the natives so much (say by giving that nation's cut all to one corrupt politician instead of to the people) that they become the targets for insurgents. Ultimately this may lead to a revolution and all those facilities being nationalized. However, behaving ethically in a deeply corrupt nation is difficult, and it may be necessary to wait until a more honest government takes power before doing business there. This is what Google ultimately decided about China, where they were being forced to censor the web and spy on the populace. StuRat (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Waste in healthcare systems

The Economist today ran this graph which shows waste in the American healthcare system and $600–850 billion, or $2,000–2800 per capita. Something like that. This surprised me a little because "efficiency" is usually the positive, where I am in the UK, for the US system – it might not be fair, it might not be particularly cheap, but it is efficient. (Avoid debating those categorisations.) However, I don't know what a comparable figure is for the UK, or perhaps the French. There's certainly been a bit in the press about poor sourcing contracts in the NHS, but I don't think it's in the £80–110 billion range. Are there some figures somewhere? This suggests a scale of more like tens of billions (if non-'scandalous' waste and private services are considered). What can you find? Are there other things to consider? Where does my money go? suggests that the NHS costs in total £119 billion. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not find answers to your questions in the article "Medical waste".

—Wavelength (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. That would be in reference to refuse-waste rather than unnecessary-expenditure-waste which is what I'm after. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is to define "waste". For example, the US system now uses disposable catheters for home patients, instead of re-using them. This seems wasteful to me, but not everyone agrees. Then there's profits made by insurers, pharmaceutical companies, etc. That money doesn't directly benefit patients, so is that "waste" ? If different defs are used in the analysis of waste in each nation, then the comparison is invalid, obviously. However, even if the same standard is applied to all, some defs will show more waste in one nation, and other defs will reverse the results. For example, if profits are considered wasteful, the US will lose by that comparison. If they aren't, then the US will fare better. StuRat (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's best to avoid trying to pin down specific waste. Instead, just look at the total amount spent and what you get for that. Health, by most measures (such as life expectancy) is pretty similar in the US and the UK, yet the US spends far far more per person on healthcare. That suggests the US healthcare system is much less efficient than the UK system. --Tango (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that kind of analysis is that health is affected by many things other than healthcare. By the measure you're proposing, two countries ("A" and "B") of the same size could have identical healthcare spending, but with the population of "B" living substantially healthier lives: eating well, regular exercise, less exposure to toxic fumes, less gun violence, etc. In that case, even if "A" were to have better doctors, more well-run hospitals, and so on—it would still have a less healthy population and therefore (by your definition) a less efficient healthcare system. Gabbe (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Except that a really efficient healthcare system would concentrate on preventative medicine, which is cheaper and more effective in the long run, so a more efficient healthcare system would do something about the unhealthy lives of the country's inhabitants. It would identify the toxic fumes, draw up cost estimates of how much treating the problems cause will cost, and aim to reduce that cost as long as reducing the population's exposure to toxic fumes is cheaper than treating them for exposure. It would look at what was costing them most (in terms of money per person-year, or whatever they're using), then tackle it. This is what has been happening with smoking in the UK, and I can see them eyeing up alcohol. It would look at why the population had unhealthy diets and took little exercise, then try to change it. I'm well aware that this disturbs some people, and that such people are especially widespread in America, but it would certainly be more efficient. So, I think mostly you can just look at outcomes versus money spent. Unless some country has a population genetically disposed to die earlier. 86.164.66.52 (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Good points. However, someone came up with something for the Economist to base their graph on, is there no similar study to other systems? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Atheist-turned-Christian

Why would someone skeptical or even critical of religion return to it? I'm interested in hearing views from both sides of the issue. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes people abandon a religion because of the actions of their religious leaders, and figure "How can this be the right religion when they do that in its name?". But then sometimes, they figure that the principles and teachings of the religion are what really matters, and whatever fallible humans do is not really the point. "The just man sins seven times a day", but is still a just man. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Fear of death, senility, to please a potential partner, to convince potential voters of niceness... I've seen all four of those reasons. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

People can return to religion after disappointment with secularity which they may have explored thoroughly before reconsidering religion. By the way—are we discussing religion in general or Christianity in particular? The section title indicates "Christianity", but the participants in the discussion seem to be referring to "religion" generally. Bus stop (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Religion within the context of Christianity (like the header implies).

I've seen lonely older folks begin to attend (or return to) church for the social aspects too. HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking Christianity when I composed my answer, since that is the milieu I'm familiar with, but it can be applied more generally. Also, there's often a disconjunct between the words in a header and the actual content of a question, so I tend to answer the more general question. Big picture - good; small picture - depends. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The second half of my last sentence (up above) is actually incorrect, so I'm going to strike it through. Bus stop (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.multilingualbible.com/1_peter/2-12.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That page is still seriously missing a plain English translation that has meaning for non-Christians and people not familiar with the jargon of the church. I can't get past "day of visitation" and the various alternatives given there. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Christianity and most religions simply offer hope. It promises a reward for good behaviour (a future life in heaven) and offers forgiveness for past sins (who also enter heaven if they truly repent). It also threatens those who don't repent or believe with hell. Basicly it is the old carrot and the stick. This becomes quite an issue when you reach old age and are afraid of death. We know that we are all going to die but we don't know what's beyond death.

Atheism simply isn't a religion; it simply doesn't make any (empty) promises at all. I'm certainly not going to judge someone who is near death, truly afraid and finds hope and refuge in religion. I will rather be happy for him and hope that his new faith helps him in his last moments. Afterwards I may point out that he was simply afraid, but who am I to judge? AFAIK I'm far from death and I like to think that I will remain an atheist until death, but who knows? I might become afraid and become a Christian. However I'm proud of those atheists who face death and who don't turn towards religion just because they are afraid. They keep their dignity without giving in to fear. Flamarande (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC) PS: And if a good atheist dies and it turns out that God and heaven truly exist after all, then a true and fair God would accept him in heaven regardless of the atheist's lack of faith. Certain self-righteous hate-filed Christian/Muslim/etc preachers paint Him is a narrow-minded bigoted evil mass murderer who will punish you if you're not pleasing to His sight. Something like that is truly a pitiful deity and not a GOD of Justice, Mercy and Love at all. I would rather join all good atheists, pagans and heretics in hell than to bow before a prick like that. AMEN.

Personal experiences: I went to church as a kid and thoroughly disliked it. I wasn't very social at Sunday school, and I couldn't sit still in "the big congregation." As I saw family members study with Jehovah's Witnesses (at around the age of 12) I decided to look into it as well. At that time, faith was a choice, and so was fame and fortune, and the latter seemed quite seductive. At around 13 I moved to live with my father, who had the big house, the nice car, the blonde trophy wife, the works. This, in turn, eroded my weak faith and led to a spiral into an intense love of music and psychoactive substances. I indeed called myself an agnostic. In college, I lived nearer my mother, who discreetly dropped 'Christian-isms.' I went from 'agnostic' to 'Theistic Fallabilist (whatever that meant). Socialism came in there somewhere too. The drug use at the time did not help my seeming wanton of purpose, and, one day, I drove by a book store and decided to buy a Bible. I started in Proverbs and I quickly read Chapter 1 Verse 20 through Chapter 2 verse 7. Next month was Easter, and I decided to attend both the Methodist service and The Memorial of Christ's Death held at the Assembly Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses. This was in March/April 2010. The differences are indescribable, sorry (one of which was the method of voluntary contributions). The next week I started a Bible Study with the JWs and have been reestablishing my faith since. I find the Kingdom Hall to fit me better. I have the opportunity to do research and share it with my brothers and sisters. Above all else, I get to share it with others from door-to-door; the most tremendous pleasure one can ever have indeed. Today, I am drug free (over a year now) and am intensely loving life and wanton for the next day's purposes. If this has sparked your interest at all you can have one of Jehovah's Witnesses contact you personally using this form here. It will take about one week. I hope this is enlightening. Schyler (one language) 03:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting story, but it doesn't answer the OP's question of "Why?" In your case, maybe we can blame the drugs. HiLo48 (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The Hound of Heaven (Francis Thompson) might provide one poetic answer to the question - it certainly ties in with my personal experience of the issue. Tevildo (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

My mother (born 1950) and grandmother (born in Austria in 1920, left in '38) both blamed Judaism for the deaths of their family members in the Shoah (Jewish portion of the Holocaust), but I think my mother is starting to return to Judaism again now that I have reintroduced the faith to our family (my dad is Presbyterean btw). So I guess in this case you have a calamity that caused them to turn away, but later in life, either as a result of thinking it through or through a family member showing you the beauty of the rituals once more, you have a return to the old beliefs. It caused my mother to become more Christian btw, not an atheist. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 08:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You have mentioned an interesting aspect of religions there - the rituals. They, along with the architecture and the music, can be very compelling. HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, yes. Islamic architecture, Mizrahi Jewish spiritual music, all incredibly beautiful. Religious fervor has been known to cause horrible horrible things, but it has also been known to create incredible beauty. As for rituals, it is definitely the case in Judaism, as most of our rituals are very happy celebrations of life. Especially ones like shabbat dinners (having a day set aside each week when the family is supposed to dine together and discuss only happy things is a relief in this day and age) and the celebrations of various high holidays except Yom Kippur and Tish B'Av of course. Search for khematz, seders, singing, dancing, all very fun for everyone! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 08:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Antony Flew is a very prominent critic-turned-convert. He even wrote a book about it: There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. Gabbe (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather a presumptious subtitle when one considers he's up against O'Hair, Dawkins and Myers... Tevildo (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Malcolm Muggeridge was another. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Notice that both of them were quite old when they converted. Who knows if their fear of death had any relation with that. Atheists converting to religion is nothing new and neither is religions ppl reaching the conclusion that there is no God at all. AFAIK atheists are slowly increasing in numbers and are on an all time high and that's new. Flamarande (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The simple answer to the OP's question is that they discover something in religion that appeals to them, that has value to them; so they embrace it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

June 18

Forsaken saint

Is there any Christian Saints or Blessed People who have been forsaken or denounced of their holiness in history? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure of your language ("forsaken" or "denounced"), but in 1969 the Catholic Church did a major clean up and decided that a bunch of people traditionally revered as saints did not qualify for further veneration. These included St Christopher, who had long been regarded the Patron Saint of Travellers. See Mysterii Paschalis. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

What about evil saints or something around that line?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about someone who's been formally canonised, and then it's been discovered they were really a rotten evil person and should not have been so declared? I doubt there's ever been a case like that. They investigate candidates' lives so exhaustively, in a process that can take literally centuries, that for some damningly negative information to turn up out of the blue would be a huge embarrassment to the Church, and the pope who made the decision to canonise. That's why they're so extremely careful in the first place. Also, it would call into question the miracles that the Church has already accepted were wrought by the departed saint in Heaven (they require some miracles to occur before they can be canonised). If they're now saying the person was evil and is probably in Hell rather than in Heaven, how did these miracles occur? Who was the agent? Was it the work of the Devil? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, there have been numerous "Saints" who were not particularly good people before their conversion to Christianity, foremost St. Paul and Augustine of Hippo spring to mind regarding Christian sainst whose pre-Christian life was anything but saintly. Of course, thats sort of exactly the point of Christianity, n'est ce pas? --Jayron32 05:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Calling parents by their name

As shown in the movie The Ring Two, Aidan calls his mother Rachel, not mom. Why? And I want to know how many children call their parents by name? --Reference Desker (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Round where I live, where so many parents are with their second or third partner, it's used quite often for the "step" parents. HiLo48 (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

They're making a third Ring movie?! Dear god, why?! I agree with HiLo, for step parents it's fairly common but mostly unheard of for birth parents or adoptive parents who have been the legal parents since infancy. This article suggests finding an alternative to not slight the birth parents who are offended by their kid calling someone else "mom" or "dad". Dismas|^(talk) 05:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

In Israel, it's common to call your elders (including teachers and your principals when in school, but I don't think the same is true for professors in unis) by their first name, when you know them, as it's a very casual country. My girlfriend constantly refers to my parents as Bob and Susan (or Bewby and Sue, for kicks). It doesn't apply to members of your own family who you call aba (dad) and ima (mom, but usually said as imaaaaaa! imaaaaaa! by kids). As the Ring Two is a western film, I'd say that Aidan's calling her that is out of disrespect, but I don't remember that movie all that much. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Reference Bart Simpson and Homer simpson ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've known some children of the 60s who called their parents by their first names because the parents wanted it that way. It's unusual, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Washington haGadah

Washington haGadah (I am not going to put the before it as that is redundant) is from the 1600s apparently, but why is it called Washington haGadah? I saw it in the Met and there was no explanation about the name. It's obviously not named after George Washington, nor does it come from any of the places named after him, so I don't get it. I couldn't find a Wiki article on it, so I'm hoping one of the fine gents who has this page on their watchlist will be able to help. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of it before. But this is from the LoC website: "Purchased by Deinard in Mantua, Italy, Joel ben Simeon’s haggadah came to the Library in 1916 along with the Third Deinard Collection comprising 2,300 items. The item was cataloged as "Hebraic Manuscript #1" and later referred to as 'The Washington Haggadah' in connection with its home in the nation’s capital."[25] --JGGardiner (talk) 06:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I first heard of it when searching for a copy of haGadah for pesach (the jerks at Judaism.com sent me a Spanish language one when I specifically said English :|) and was given the option of buying it at a local bookstore. I then saw it when I was with my mum at the Met (before leaving for Israel). It is a small book, very nice though. Hmmm, there are similar cases where objects are referred to by the place they are kept when there isn't a better name for them. It's better than Hebraic Manuscript #1 anyway. Thanks. I think it is notable enough to have an article, no? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Created one. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 08:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)